The Netherlands Chat

This past weekend, I did some traveling to visit family out of state and get out of the “cabin” for awhile. The weather was good and a cookout ensued on Sunday under sunny skies and mid 70 temperatures.  As the guests gathered, a nice family arrived, friends of my sister and brother-n-law.  Marc, Trista and their two boys were really nice people and we had a great time playing cornhole and enjoying the great weather.  Marc, is a legal immigrant from the Netherlands.  His mother still resides there, is retired and visits when she can.  So I thought I’d ask questions about life over there, especially when it pertained to the Socialist utopia that a few have been brainwashed into believing.  Here is a look at what we talked about.

Healthcare-  Healthcare has been 100% socialized up till the recent few years where it is taking a turn towards privatizing.  This was paid for through taxes and co-pays.  Co-pays were based on income, the more you make, the more your co-pays were.   I asked why the push away from socialized medicine.  The reply was simple, government costs too much.  There was also no talk about lowering taxes as a result of this, and the government would not address the question.  (not a shock there).

Public transportation-  this is the best thing that I found.  The have a great public transportation system, with trains running regularly and on time.  The cost is minimal, with senior citizens paying even less.   It is mostly taxpayer funded and used by most, except the wealthy (1%)  Yes, they have this group too!

Taxes-  Now for the bad news.  Tax rates are around 50% on income and all but the poorest pay.  Taxes on luxury items like cars and TV’s are above 20%, in some cases, reaching 40%, depending on the item.  Clothes are also highly taxed above 10%.

Driving-  You want to drive, you will pay the price.  a drivers license costs about 4K to get.  Annual license plates are value dependent, as much as 5K a year.  Gas is around 7 dollars a gallon.   No question as to why public transportation is so well liked anymore!

Public welfare-  There welfare system is far bigger and more lucrative than ours.  Immigrants who work their can get assistance for everything, money for food, rent, furniture, transportation costs, utilities and on and on.  This is a very sore subject for the natives, as you could imagine.  A Moroccan immigrant can live for free in the Netherlands, while taking his earnings and living in luxury back in Morocco for over half the year.  Similar to our immigrants send money home, except they can work for half a year at a time over there.

Education-  I heard good things about the system as a whole, but we did not spend much time talking about it or the details.

Retirement-  I did not get many details on the subject.  Marc’s mother took a 7% cut in her retirement income at the beginning of the year.  the only answer was that it was government mandated and there is still anger over it.

That is most of the talk in a nutshell.  Marc said he could not afford to live over there and raise his boys like he is doing today, because of the taxes.   He told me about his mother and upbringing and we shared lots of fond memories.  We will now arrange for him and his family to come up to the country this summer for some quiet time shooting guns and dancing around the campfire at night !   As usual, feel free to bring forward any subjects for continued debate.



  1. gmanfortruth says:


  2. Well, I guess that set of anecdotes clears the air … check the Netherlands off the list of countries where people have a better standard of living than America …

    Yeah, right … You’re still a funny guy, G … 🙂

    • Just A Citizen says:

      But any anecdote supporting their system is just fine! Probably even called Research or FACTS.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Feel free to go live there Charlie 🙂 It is your utopia exactly as you want it. It doesn’t sound like a bad place to live, although I don’t like the Socialist aspects and taxes that go with them. But like all govt promises, they will fail the people eventually, just like Greece, Spain, Italy, Portagul, and all the rest of the Socialite countries sending their people to the dumpster to eat. I LOVE THE USA! 🙂

  3. Just A Citizen says:
  4. Just A Citizen says:


    I forgot to ask about your trip south. I see now that it looks like you had fun.

    I followed up my trip to Montana with half a week on the Pacific Coast. Taking nice strolls on the beach in 50 mph winds with sand blasting us to a shiny glow. The driving rain wasn’t enough to keep the sand on the ground where it belonged.

    Very “invigorating” to say the least.

    Hope your Spring has finally arrived and is not just messing with you.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Thanks JAC, I had a great time. There are just to many people in the Hampton Roads area for me, so a visit is all I can handle. I enjoyed all the friends and family.

      Today is really nice outside. Near 70 today and tomorrow. Had our first Spring thunderstorm last night, I really sleep well when it rains. Happy that you had fun on your trip as well. I’ll take my mother down there in June for a visit as well.

      Spring is here, YIPPEE! 🙂

  5. Did You Know This? The US Has Surpassed Saudi Arabia in Oil Production

    I didn’t, and you’d think this would be a big f’n deal.

    In spite of the Obama Administration’s hostility to carbon-rich energy, private actors with private capital deployed on private (and state) land have launched a game-changing revolution in domestic oil and natural gas production.

    A scarcely reported milestone conveys the magnitude of this turnaround in the global
    energy landscape.

    The U.S. passed Saudi Arabia as the world’s largest petroleum producer in November 2012, according to recently released data of the federal Energy Information Administration.

    Over the last five years, domestic oil output has risen 40% and continually outpaces projections. Last year, domestic output increased by 800,000 barrels per day. This is the largest increase in annual production since the first oil well was drilled in 1859 in Pennsylvania.

    Despite Obama shutting down production in the Gulf. Despite the EPA. Despite NY fiddle-farting around with permits for fracking.

    On private lands, open to production, we are now pumping more oil out of the ground than the Saudis.

    We still import, but one of the funny other unknown things is we import more from Canada than Saudi Arabia and have for years. While Obama and his EPA stall Keystone, the Eagle Ford field in south Texas has become the most productive oil and gas field in the world. In six years it grew from nothing to 375,000 barrels a day. $60 billion dollar a year impact to the Texas economy. 116,000 jobs (more than double the 48,000 in 2011).

    And it’s not just Texas. It’s everywhere. In. The. United. States. of Holy-crap we got oil America.

  6. Cindy Sheehan vs. Pat Smith: How The Media Continues To Serve As Obama’s Bodyguard
    by AJ Delgado | 5:50 pm, April 7th, 2013 » 399 comments

    Remember Cindy Sheehan? Sheehan lost her son, Army Specialist Casey Sheehan, in the Iraq War in 2004, became a staunch anti-war activist, and an overnight celebrity. Where Sheehan went, cameras, microphones, and fawning praise followed, breathlessly capturing her every thought on President Bush and the war. The makeshift camp she set up outside of Bush’s Crawford ranch attracted scores of (other) celebrities, journalists, and even Congressmen. Sheehan’s message was not only devoutly covered but even flattering
    monikers were bestowed (“the Rosa Parks of the peace movement!”) and accolades were endless.

    Sheehan was given any and every platform, with the media tripping over itself, for years, to report her words.

    The espoused rationale for the intense coverage was, purportedly, that this grieving mother deserved an ‘explanation’ for her son’s death. This despite the fact that, as tragic as her loss was, Sheehan’s quest was not one seeking answers, nor were there any unaddressed questions or mysteries about her son’s death – her mission was a general, common one: that of an anti-war protestor.

    That same media, however, who believed Sheehan was owed an explanation, is curiously dismissive of Pat Smith. Pat Smith lost her son, Information Officer Sean Smith, in the Benghazi attack last autumn. But apart from a few scattered interviews, the mainstream media has, for months, turned its back on Smith, seemingly echoing Hillary Clinton’s “What difference does it make?!” sentiment. Far from receiving praise and encouragement, Smith, in an interview with Sean Hannity on his radio program last week, emotionally noted the efforts to silence her.

    But both are grieving mothers who lost a son while he served his country abroad during a controversial event. So why the difference in treatment? Why was one mother inundated with media while the other is shunned?

    Quite simply, Cindy Sheehan — slamming the “illegal and immoral” war for “oil” and comparing Bush to Hitler — was Christmas morning, every morning, for the Left.

    Pat Smith, on the other hand, seeks answers surrounding the Benghazi attack. She is therefore no Christmas present – rather, she is an inconvenience that must be brushed under the rug. Unlike Sheehan, who was used as a pawn to further the Left’s narrative, Smith’s quest presents a danger to the Obama Administration’s record and image.

    Make no mistake: had Benghazi occurred under a Republican administration, the media would fawn over Smith with even greater adoration than that bestowed upon Sheehan. No network, no microphone, and no camera would be closed to her. But, as Benghazi is a horrific failure on the part of President Obama and then-Secretary of State Clinton, the media has gladly employed its role as guardian of the administration (who needs the Praetorian Guard of yesteryear when we have MSNBC?), ignoring the story, ignoring Smith, even ignoring its own instinctive draw and duty to explore a story where, in stark contrast to Sheehan’s, enormous mysteries and questions loom.

    The same media that obsessed over whether Bush received unflattering reviews during his Texas Air National Guard service, now refuses to investigate President Obama’s errors in Benghazi – or, at the very least, question why he slumbered, resting for a Vegas fundraiser, knowing of an ongoing attack.

    Consider a few of the many questions still unanswered, seven months later:

    There are reportedly 30 survivors who received treatment at Walter Reed Hospital. Why the refusal to disclose any of their names? Why are official requests by several Republican senators rebuffed? Why has there not been a single shared interview with these eyewitnesses?

    Why are some of the survivors reportedly afraid to speak out and why were they told to keep silent?

    Why have there been no Congressional hearings with any these survivors?

    What were the actual reasons behind the attack? Was this a terrorist act? By whom? Why the hesitation to label it as such?

    Why was the blame initially, wrongly, placed on a YouTube video, including even the arrest of the filmmaker for good measure?

    Why were warnings of an impending attack ignored?

    Why were requests for additional security, by Ambassador Stevens and others, repeatedly denied?

    Why were reinforcements reportedly told to stand down?

    What kind of inadequate security did the compound have and why?

    Most of all: Where is the transparency President Obama promised the American people? Columnist and Fox News contributor Kirsten Powers said it best last month when reflecting on the lack of information, noting: “Someone should ask Obama to define the word ‘transparency’.”

    In flagrant disregard of all these questions, much of the media steadfastly ignores Benghazi, complicit in the Obama Administration’s dismissal of the fallen’s families and of the American people, who beg for answers and are met with barricades, lies, denials, and a shrug of indifference. While the First Couple celebrates in lavish White House parties, a grieving Pat Smith is silenced, left with only memories of her sole child and no answers as to why or how he perished.

    Benghazi should be the Watergate of our time. Where are the Woodward and Bernsteins? Ah, but this could stain Obama and Hillary’s record? The Pulitzer can wait then. It seems, under this presidency, the media’s motto, rather than ‘leave no stone unturned,’ is ‘leave no stone uncovered.’

    The American public, and Ms. Smith most of all, continues to press for answers from an indignant administration that instead betrays its sworn duty, as four corpses lay in the ground, and blithely moves on.

    When discussing gun control recently, and referencing the Newtown tragedy, President Obama chided: “Shame on us if we’ve forgotten.”

    Well, Mr. President, to that I would add: Shame on you if you’ve forgotten Benghazi.


    • White House flies Newtown families on Air Force One, refuses to pay travel expenses for Benghazi victim’s mother


      It seems there is some incredible hypocrisy going on at the White House. It seems the White House is dealing in double standards, and it’s all about politics.

      First, from the AP:

      President Barack Obama is bringing 11 families of those killed in the shooting at Connecticut’s Sandy Hook Elementary School to Washington on Air Force One.

      A nonprofit organization that works with the families, Sandy Hook Promise, says the president is bringing victims’ relatives with him on his plane after he delivers a speech Monday on gun control in Hartford. The White House says Obama is going to say in his remarks that lawmakers have an obligation to the children killed and other victims of gun violence to act on his proposals.

      Gun legislation is up for debate in the Senate this week after lawmakers return from spring break. The Sandy Hook families want to speak to lawmakers to encourage their vote amid tough opposition to the proposals.

      read the rest

      As we have noted before on this website, Air Force One costs the taxpayers $180,000 per hour of flight time.

      On the other hand, the White House is refusing to pay for the travel expenses of Pat Smith, the mother of one of the victims at Benghazi, who plans to travel to Washington DC to see her son receive honors in May.

      Listen to this audio from the Sean Hannity Show:

      Hannity’s offer to pay for her travel expenses is a beautiful gesture of kindness, but my question is why the White House is requiring this poor woman to pay her own way in the first place.

      So, what’s the difference in these two stories? In one, President Obama flies the families of the Newtown shooting victims on Air Force One to a speech he made on gun control. In the other, the mother of a Benghazi terror attack victim has to pay for her own travel expenses to see her son receive posthumous honors from the Federal Government.

      The answer is simple. The Newtown families here are being used as political props for Obama’s gun control agenda. The Benghazi attack, however, does nothing but cast a spotlight on Obama’s failure and neglect in Libya. It’s all about politics and narrative, and it demonstrates that Obama cares little about the actual lives lost in these tragedies.

      This is hypocrisy at its worst, and the Obama administration does both with no shame.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Your being redundant, in soooooo many ways.

      • As opposed to you, a parrot for the liberty conscious right …

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Very revealing about you. But nothing new nor unexpected.

          • Did you click on what Democrats say? 🙂

            • Just A Citizen says:


              No. I almost did but then figured it would be just as bad so I tried to take the high road.

              How about you?

              • I listened to the other video 🙂 -brings me to the conclusion that the woman making the video’s wanted to point out the craziness of both sides. So I think the bad was on purpose but not for the reason one would think if they only listened to one.

            • You’ll have to go for socialists to try and get my goat … but then if you get my goat, you’d be stealing, wouldn’t you? Parasite!

  7. Just A Citizen says:


    I recall you asked about opinions on bitcoin a little while back.

    Thought you would find this of interest.

    Kind of confirms my feelings about it…………… Another GIMMICK………Buyer beware!!!

    • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

      Like Todd, you are missing the point. The man is not a Socialist but a National Socialist. Hand and glove with industry. Each thinks they control the other. Both are right. The perfect symbiotic relationship. What and who said….

      “What’s good for GM is good for the country”.

      • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

        Can’t quite understand why I threw that “what” in upstairs. It is a who said question. Must be the joyful anticipation of grandkid # 5 tomorrow has scrambled what brains I have tonight. .

  8. Hmmmm, my husband was given an anti-depressant to help him quite smoking-I wonder if it would qualify.

    A Form of Gun Confiscation Has Reportedly Begun in New York State — Here’s the Justification Being Used
    Apr. 9, 2013 6:30pm Mike Opelka

    Despite promises from the president and a host of other politicians who are pushing for more gun control that nobody is coming for your guns, the confiscation of guns and gun permits has apparently started in some form in New York State. One attorney representing several people who have been forced to surrender their guns spoke with TheBlaze and alerted us to some disturbing facts:

    Gun owners are losing their 2nd Amendment rights without due process.
    HIPAA Laws are likely being compromised and the 4th and 5th Amendments are being violated in some of these cases

    How did confiscation start happening so quickly? Apparently the gun grabbing was triggered by something inside the NY SAFE Act — New York’s new gun law — that has a provision apparently mandating confiscation of weapons and permits if someone has been prescribed psychotropic drugs.

    This is curious because in his January 9th address, Cuomo specifically addressed the issue of confiscation:

    The Case:

    On April 1st, a legal gun owner in upstate New York reportedly received an official notice from the state ordering him to surrender any and all weapons to his local police department. The note said that the person’s permit to own a gun in New York was being suspended as well. The gun owner contacted attorney Jim Tresmond (a specialist in gun laws in New York) and the two visited the local police precinct.

    Mr. Tresmond reportedly went into the precinct and informed the officers that his client, waiting in the parking lot, was coming in to voluntarily surrender his weapons as requested. The local police were aware of the letter because they had already been contacted by the State Police. Apparently, if people do not respond to the initial mailing, local law enforcement is authorized to visit the gun owner at their home and demand the surrender of the firearms. In this case, the gun owner followed the request as written. The guns and permits were handed over and a receipt given to the client.

    After the guns were turned over, a request for a local hearing was filed and the gun owner is expecting to have his Second Amendment rights restored. But there is more to this story.

    In our conversation with lawyer Jim Tresmond, we learned that this client, who has never had a problem with the law — no criminal record and or violent incidents on record — did have a temporary, short term health issue that required medication. But how were his client’s private medical information accessed by the government? This appears to be a violation of HIPAA and Health Information Privacy policies at If it is declared a violation, this becomes a civil rights issue.

    Some claim that a broad interpretation of this statement from HIPAA might allow the government to have instant access to the medical records and gun ownership records of anyone who is prescribed psychotropic drugs.

    A major goal of the Privacy Rule is to assure that individuals’ health information is properly protected while allowing the flow of health information needed to provide and promote high quality health care and to protect the public’s health and well being.

    That short phrase, “protect the public’s health and well being” is probably going to be cited as the reason governments can require notification of any gun owner who is prescribed a class of drugs used to treat Depression and Anxiety known as SSRI ( Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors).

    The Mental Health Law provision of the SAFE Act claims

    The NY SAFE Act is designed to remove firearms from those who seek to do harm to themselves or others. This means keeping the minority of individuals with serious mental illness who may be dangerous away from access to firearms. This law should not dissuade any individual from seeking mental health services they need.

    The law is clear on what it expects:

    MHL 9.46 requires mental health professionals to report to their local director of community services (“DCS”) or his/her designees when, in their reasonable professional judgment, one of their patients is “likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to self or others.”

    The man who was asked/directed to turn over his guns reportedly did not exhibit any signs of violent or dangerous behavior. According to his attorney, the man’s doctor did not report any danger to the authorities. So, who did report it?

    Also known as MHL 9.46, the law talks about who is supposed to report on mental health risks and which patients qualify:

    The reporting requirement extends to “mental health professionals,” defined in the law as four professions – physicians (including psychiatrists), psychologists, registered nurses, or licensed clinical social workers.

    In addition to what Mr. Tresmond called “the laughable diminution of our rights,” the lawyer speculated about additional unintended consequences of releasing this confidential patient information to law enforcement.

    What if an employer learns that a worker had their firearms confiscated? Could that person’s employment be put at risk?
    What if your neighbors saw police come to your home and leave with your guns? Could that compromise your safety?
    Could this kind of confiscation also make people think twice about getting treatment for a temporary mental illness?

    In an effort to learn how many permits and guns have been rescinded due to this medical exception, TheBlaze has made several attempts to contact the Erie County office over pistol permits where this one incident originated. We have yet to be connected with a real person who can answer these questions.

    We have also reached out to the Albany office of the New York State Police, but no official response has been received.

    Mr. Tresmond has also agreed to keep us posted on his client’s efforts to have his Second Amendment rights restored and get back his guns.

    TheBlaze will continue to monitor this story and we are also interested in hearing from other New Yorkers who may have experienced this type of confiscation. Please send all emails to

  9. And now the new tactic………gay infertility insurance rights. Holy shit.

    • Stop making fun of my state! First Charlie makes fun of my cousins because the talk funny now you are wanting to deny fertility rites to my fellow citizens. When will this lack of respect end for our civil rites end? 🙂

  10. gmanfortruth says:

    @Chuckles 🙂 Well MR. Communist, what about the Netherlands (That’s Holland for yous idiots) ? You Utopia is a failing idealism, only designed to steal from the masses. You can see this, right? If not, well, that doesn’t make you to damn bright, now does it?

    That’s OK, I have a big heart for the mentally handicapped, so I love ya anyway 🙂

  11. Seems public employee union members are voting with their feet now that the union must ask for their dues rather than just steal them.

  12. d13thecolonel,

    Great….where do you want to go with this topic. Does it exist? Is it good or bad? I think I will just discuss it….and whether there is a legitimate argument for or against it….fair?

    Sure – your choice.

    Ok…I went back and read some of the contrast and it appears that the argument centered around the age old argument that the rich are getting more so and the poor are getting more so due to the lack of “income mobility”. In other words, the so called 1 percent control all the money and the so called masses have no opportunity because of this…..correct?

    You can make whatever arguments you want. That’s kinda the point of discussing it…

    income mobility must be defined before any other aspects can be discussed. Can we agree that the definition of income mobility is defined as…….” the movement of an individual or group from one income level to another. “

    I would make one important distinction – “Income mobility is the ability of an individual, family or some other group to improve (or lower) their economic status

    Also, I prefer to do my own research. I am going straight to the Treasury Department, the Census Department, and the IRS to research results. I will not use Fox News, Huffpo, CNN, Wiki or the like because all of their numbers reflect bias. I will also not use any research used by college professors, pro or con, as their numbers will also be skewed….so as to research properly the issue of income mobility and contrast it to the axiom that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer….one has to rely on the data as collected by those departments and extrapolate exactly what the data shows and not hyperbole of opinion.

    Ok, but be sure to show exactly where you get your data from. Not just general references to entire data streams.

    • I know that I do not have the references that you seek, but a local radio host, Tom Sullivan, ( did a show on income mobility here in Sacramento several years ago. He had the statistics and was quite thorough in presenting the results. There is/was a surprising amount of mobility with people both moving up the scale and down the scale. Tom is now a business analyst for Fox Business News plus he still has a daily radio show. While a fiscal conservative, he is much more practical and humble than his fellow conservative hosts.

      • I’m not a big fan of “Income Mobility” stats. I haven’t really looked at it much until recently, and there’s too many variables for the average person to make sense out of it.

        Some of my issues/concerns/assumptions:

        Every time someone loses their job, they move down, and someone else moves up, even though their economic situation may not have changed.
        When low-skill workers enter the market, they push everyone else up.
        High-skill entries push others down.
        Most people move up and down within a pretty small range.
        There are plenty of people who move from the bottom way up, but that’s still a small percentage.
        You have to follow a large number of actual individuals, for a long time, to see if they’re economic status is REALLY improving.
        No matter what the stats are, each of the 5 quintiles will always contain 20% of the people. Is the economic status of the lower quintiles REALLY improving, or are they just “splashing” around each other, fighting over the same crumbs?
        Are the average incomes in each quintile going up at similar rates, or is one group out-performing the others?

        And yes, I have a “little” bias about some of these…

  13. FLPatriot,

    Federal sales tax. If we eliminate all other forms of taxation and only charged a federal sales tax it would fund the government and hurt the “evil rich” people the most, just the way you like it. The difference is that people would be able to earn as much as they want and at the same time decide how much taxes they pay.

    You can’t be serious? This is your definition of “treating all people equally”?

    How will this “hurt the “evil rich” people the most”?

    How will this let people “decide how much taxes they pay”?

    I’d give you examples for all of these, but then JAC will just pick apart the examples and avoid the issues. So I’ll just let you answer the questions…

    • List of taxes paid by Americans
      1. Accounts Receivable Tax
      2. Accounting and Tax Preparation (cost to taxpayers $300 billion)
      3. Accumulated Earnings Tax
      4. Accumulation Distribution of Trusts
      5. Activity Fee (Dumping Permit Fee)
      6 . Air Tax (PA coin-operated vacuums)
      7. Aircraft Jet Fuel Tax
      8. Aircraft Excise Tax
      9 . Alcohol Fuels Tax
      10. Alcoholic Beverage Tax
      11. Alternative Minimum Tax – Amt
      12. Ambulance Services (Air Ambulance Services, SD)
      13. Ammunition Tax
      14. Amusement Tax (MA, VA, MD)
      15. Animal Slaughter Tax (WI, others, Per Animal)
      16. Annual Custodial Fees (Ira Accounts)
      17. Ballast Water Management Fee (Marine Invasive Species)
      18. Biodiesel Fuel Tax
      19. Blueberry Tax (Maine)
      20. Bribe Taxes (Pay If You Dare)
      21. Brothel licensing fees
      22. Building Permit Tax
      23. Capital Gains Tax
      24. California Interstate User Diesel Fuel Tax
      25. California Redemption Value (Can and Bottle Tax)
      26. CDL License Tax
      27. Charter Boat Captain License
      28. Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Fee
      29. Cigarette Tax
      30. Cigarette Tax Stamp (Acts) (Distributors)
      31. Compressed Natural Gas Tax
      32. Commercial Activity Tax (OH – for Service Providers)
      33. Corporate Income Tax
      34. Court Fines (Indirect Taxes)
      35. County Property Tax
      36. Disposable Diapers Tax (Wisconsin)
      37. Disposal Fee (Any Landfill Dumping)
      38. Dog License Tax
      39. Duck Hunting Tax Stamp (PA, others)
      40. Electronic Waste Recycling Fee (E-Waste)
      41. Emergency Telephone User Surcharge
      42. Environmental Fee (CA – HazMat Fees)
      43. Estate Tax (Death Tax, to be reinstated)
      44. Excise Taxes
      45. Facility Fee (CA – HazMat Fees)
      46. FDIC tax (insurance premium on bank deposits)
      47. Federal Income Tax
      48. Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
      49. Fiduciary Income Tax (Estates and Trusts)
      50. Fishing License Tax
      51. Flush Tax (MD Tax For Producing Wastewater)
      52. Food License Tax
      53. Fountain Soda Drink Tax (Chicago – 9%)
      54. Franchise Tax
      55. Fresh Fruit (CA, if Purchased From A Vending Machine)
      56. Fuel Gross Receipts Tax (Retail/Distributor)
      57. Fuel Permit Tax
      58. Fur Clothing Tax (MN)
      59. Garbage Tax
      60. Gasoline Tax (475 Cents Per Gallon)
      61. Generation-Skipping Transfer Tax
      62. Generator Fee (Recycled Waste Fee)
      63. Gift Tax
      64. Gross Receipts Tax
      65. Habitat Stamp (Hunting/Fishing in some states)
      66. Hamburger Tax
      67. Hazardous Substances Fees: Generator, Facility, Disposal
      68. Highway Access Fee
      69. Household Employment Taxes
      70. Hunting License Tax
      71. Illegal Drug Possession (No Carolina)
      72. Individual Income Tax
      73. Inheritance Tax
      74. Insect Control Hazardous Materials License
      75. Insurance Premium Tax
      76. Intangible Tax (Leases Of Govt. Owned Real Property)
      77. Integrated Waste Management Fee
      78. Interstate User Diesel Fuel Tax
      79. Inventory Tax
      80. IRA Rollover Tax (a transfer of IRA money)
      81. IRA Early Withdrawal Tax
      82. IRS Interest Charges
      83. IRS Penalties (Tax On Top Of Tax)
      84. Jock Tax (income earned by athletes in some states)
      85. Kerosene, Distillate, & Stove Oil Taxes
      86. Kiddie Tax (Child’s Earned Interest Form 8615)
      87. Land Gains and Real Estate Withholding
      88. Lead Poisoning Prevention Fee (Occupational)
      89. Lease Severance Tax
      90. Library Tax
      91. Liquid Natural Gas Tax
      92. Liquid Petroleum Gas Tax
      93. Liquor Tax
      94. Litigation Tax (TN Imposes Varies With the Offense)
      95. LLC/PLLC Corporate Registration Tax
      96. Local Income Tax
      97. Lodging Taxes
      98. Lump-Sum Distributions
      99. Luxury Taxes
      100. Make-Up Tax (Ohio, applying in a salon is taxable)
      101. Marriage License Tax
      102. Meal Tax
      103. Medicare Tax
      104. Mello-Roos Taxes (Special Taxes and Assessments)
      105. Migratory Waterfowl Stamp (addition to hunting license)
      106. Minnow Dealers License (Retail – For One Shop)
      107. Minnow Dealers License (Distributor – For One+ Shops)
      108. Mobile Home Ad Valorem Taxes
      109. Motor Fuel Tax (For Suppliers)
      110. Motor Vehicle Tax
      111. Music and Dramatic Performing Rights Tax
      112. Nudity Tax (Utah)
      113. Nursery Registration (Buying and selling plants)
      114. Occupancy Inspection Fees
      115. Occupation Taxes and Fees (Various Professional Fees)
      116. Oil and Gas Assessment Tax
      117. Oil Spill Response, Prevention, and Administration Fee
      118. Parking Space Taxes
      119. Pass-Through Withholding
      120. Pay-Phone Calls Tax (Indiana)
      121. Percolation Test Fee
      122. Personal Property Tax
      123. Personal Holding Company (undistributed earnings)
      124. Pest Control License
      125. Petroleum Business Tax
      126. Playing Card Tax (Al)
      127. Pole Tax (TX – A $5 Cover Charge On Strip Clubs)
      128. Profit from Illegal Drug Dealing
      129. Property Tax
      130. Property Transfer Tax (DE, ownership transfer between parties)
      131. Prostitution Tax (NV – Prostitute Work Permits)
      132. Poultry Registered Premises License (Sales License)
      133. Rain Water Tax (Runoff after a Storm)
      134. Rat Control Fee (CA)
      135. Real Estate Tax
      136. Recreational Vehicle Tax
      137. Refrigerator and Freezer Recycling Fees
      138. Regional Transit Taxing Authority (Trains)
      139. Road Usage Tax
      140. Room Tax (Hotel Rooms)
      141. Sales Tax (State)
      142. Sales Tax (City)
      143. Sales And Use Tax (Sellers Permit)
      144. School Tax
      145. Service Charge Tax
      146. Self Employment Tax
      147. Septic And Drain Field Inspection Fees
      148. Sex Sales Tax (UT, when nude people perform services)
      149. Sewer & Water Tax
      150. Social Security Tax
      151. Sparkler and Novelties Tax (WV Sellers of Sparklers, etc)
      152. Special Assessment Tax (Not Ad Valorem)
      153. State Documentary Stamp Tax on Notes (FL RE Tax)
      154. State Franchise Tax
      155. State Income Tax
      156. State Park Fees
      157. State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
      158. Straight Vegetable Oil (SVO) Fuel Tax
      159. Stud Fees (Kentucky’s Thoroughbred Sex Tax)
      160. Tangible Personal Property Tax
      161. Tattoo Tax (AR Tax On Tattoos)
      162. Telephone 911 Service Tax (some states)
      163. Telephone Federal Excise Tax
      164. Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
      165. Telephone Federal Surcharge Taxes
      166. Telephone State Surcharge Taxes
      167. Telephone Local Surcharge Taxes
      168. Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
      169. Telephone Recurring Charges Tax
      170. Telephone Universal Access Tax
      171. Telephone Non-Recurring Charges Tax
      172. Telephone State Usage Charge Tax
      173. Telephone Local Usage Charge Tax
      174. Tire Recycling Fee
      175. Tobacco Tax (Cigar, Pipe, Consumer Tax)
      176. Tobacco Tax (Cigar, Pipe, Dealer Tax)
      177. Toll Road Taxes
      178. Toll Bridge Taxes
      179. Toll Tunnel Taxes
      180. Tourism or Concession License Fee
      181. Traffic Fines (Indirect Taxation)
      182. Transportable Treatment Unit Fee (Small Facility)
      183. Trailer Registration Tax
      184. Trout Stamp (Addendum To Fish License)
      185. Use Taxes (On Out-Of-State Purchases)
      186. Utility Taxes
      187. Unemployment Tax
      188. Underground Storage Tank Maintenance Fee
      189. Underpayment of Estimated Tax (Form 2210)
      190. Unreported Tip Income (Social Security and Medicare Tax)
      191. Vehicle License
      192. Vehicle Recovery Tax (CO, to find stolen cars)
      193. Vehicle Registration Tax
      194. Vehicle Sales Tax
      195. Wagering Tax (Tax on Gambling Winnings)
      196. Waste Vegetable Oil (WVO) Fuel Tax
      197. Water Rights Fee
      198. Watercraft Registration Tax
      199. Waterfowl Stamp Tax
      200. Well Permit Tax
      201. Wiring Inspection Fees
      202. Workers Compensation Tax

      Some of these are local and state taxes. I am sure it is not a comprehensive list as there fees and other forms of taxes not on the list. Just this year I had to pay a Fire Fee to the state despite paying local fire taxes just because I live in a semi-rural area. Not on the list is the lottery tax which taxes the poor to create the rich. Also not on the list are the new ObamaCare taxes. The SCOTUS somehow managed to make a tax out of a penalty (fine) which is applied without due process. This is not uniformily applied in that it taxes only those individuals who do not wish to participate in a particular commercial transaction.

      Now Todd, everyone of these taxes has a collection cost associated with it plus a bevy of bureaucrats to collect them. Many of these taxes are assessed without regard to income. Would it not be wise to eliminate most of these petty taxes and institute one uniform tax system to replace them. This would reduce our collection costs dramatically.

      Initially, the Federal government could only collect excise taxes and tariffs. They also sold land which generated considerable income. They had the right to levee a per capita tax on the states but the states were obligated to collect it from the individuals. Since the inception of the income tax, the Federal government has grown unabated.

      There is nothing fair about our current tax structures whether you are rich, poor, a corporation or a mom and pop business. We have allowed Congress and the states to create a patch work of special interests, exemptions, etc. The only way to fix this is to start from scratch.

      • T-Ray,

        everyone of these taxes has a collection cost associated with it plus a bevy of bureaucrats to collect them.

        True – but you have to define “bevy” to make sure your counts are correct.

        Many of these taxes are assessed without regard to income.


        Would it not be wise to eliminate most of these petty taxes and institute one uniform tax system to replace them.

        Not necessarily. You wouldn’t know this without doing an in-depth analysis of each – who pays it, what is the money used for. Many of these are user-fees that support the activity that is “taxed”. Many groups support these fees/taxes because they support their activities.

        What happens when one group feels they are not getting “their fair share” of the uniform tax?
        Why should I have to contribute an equal amount to this uniform system if I don’t participate in any of these activities?

        This would reduce our collection costs dramatically.

        Not necessarily. You’re assuming you’d do it better.

        There is nothing fair about our current tax structures…

        You have to define “fair” before you can make this statement.

        whether you are rich, poor, a corporation or a mom and pop business

        Like I was telling JAC, you obviously don’t understand “rich,” because our current tax structure is pretty “fair” for them…

        The only way to fix this is to start from scratch.

        What makes you think starting from scratch will fix this problem?

        Do you really think 300,000,000 people are going to agree how to collect and distribute money to replace the 200+ current taxes/fees?

    • @Todd:

      How will this “hurt the “evil rich” people the most”? The more someone spends on goods the more they pay in taxes. I’m sure you would agree that Koby Bryant spends on goods more than you make in a year, he would then be paying more taxes.

      How will this let people “decide how much taxes they pay”? If you don’t want to pay taxes then don’t buy new goods. National sales tax would only apply to new products. You could live modestly and still pay zero taxes to the government. BTW, this is the number 1 reason politicians hate the idea.

      Before you answer more questions that have already been asked by others here is a link to a FAQ:

      • FLPatriot,
        As I go thru the FairTax point by point (and I really am – I find this stuff interesting!), one thing that bugs me is when you post this, why don’t you do some analysis of it? List out the good points, how it will work, and some of the problems? And if your response is “I agree with everything”, then you’re not really doing any critical thinking about it.

        I see SUFA as a place to discuss ideas. If it becomes a place to “post articles I agree with” it loses any value.

        You’re not the first – or the worst – person to do this (and I don’t mean to pick on any one – I’m going to catch hell for that statement!). It just so happens that we’re involved in this discussion, and I seem to be the only one doing any analysis of the topic…

        I could just post a link to an article that refutes the FairTax (at least I think I could – I haven’t searched for anything), but that’s no fun.

        Just a thought…

      • FLPatriot,
        I’ve seen these “FairtTax” proposals before. The biggest problem is this assumption on the “Effective Fair Tax Rate 2010” chart under Is the 23% FairTax higher or lower when compared to the income taxes people pay today?

        Annual income = annual spending

        The thing you don’t understand about “evil rich” people, is that they don’t spend anywhere near all of their income. I don’t think Koby Bryant is a good example, because the spending habits of professional athletes aren’t the same as your average “evil rich” people, and we don’t know what Koby Bryant spends each year.

        But for me and my wife, we spend about 1/2 of our income, which drops our tax rate from 20.1% to 11.5%. And the percentage of income spent tends to drop as income rises even higher, while the middle and lower class tend to spend all or most of their income.

        This plays havoc with this funding method. Will 23% really raise enough revenue?

        So the “evil rich” people will be able to “decide how much taxes they pay”, while the middle and lower class don’t have as much of a choice – unless you consider living in squalor a “choice”. Or we could all just buy stuff from our neighbors at Rummage Sales, and sell our stuff to them…

        Some concerns in the FAQ:

        The transition to a reformed Social Security system is eased while ensuring there is sufficient funding to continue promised benefits.

        How are they planning to reform Social Security?

        For example, if a mandatory private savings program is implemented where people must save ten percent of their income and Social Security benefits are curtailed, then the FairTax rate can be reduced just as payroll taxes would be reduced.

        Mandatory private savings program? I thought you wanted less government intrusion? How is a “Mandatory private savings program” different from a TAX? Let’s just IRS to MPSPS (Mandatory Private Savings Program Service) and then we won’t have any TAXES…

        Yeah, I know it’s just “an example,” but why is this “example” included?

        PCE has always grown from year to year

        What? The blue line goes up and down, just less extreme than the red line…

        Our present tax system is one of the reasons that people are finding it so difficult to get ahead these days.

        Need some evidence to support this claim.

        If, however, they use their money to build job-creating factories, finance research and development to create new products, or fund charitable activities (all of which help improve the standard of living of others), then those activities are not taxed.

        Like I said, the tax rate on the “evil rich” people will be much lower than the charts imply.

        Exactly how much prices will fall and wages will rise depends on market forces.

        I wouldn’t count on prices falling and wages raising because of this…

        For example, in a profession with many jobs and too few to fill them, wages will likely increase more than in fields where there are too many employees and not enough jobs.

        This is already the case. How does tax structure affect this?

        Finally, the wealthy make decisions on charitable giving based on the cause. Once they have determined the cause is worthy, their contribution is structured to maximize the gift and minimize the tax. But the intention to give comes first; taxes simply determine the structure — rarely the amount — of the gift.

        Many here at SUFA disagree with this…

        How are state tax systems affected, and can states adequately collect a federal sales tax?

        This entire section makes a lot of assumption, especially States going along with this.

        How does the FairTax affect illegal immigration?

        This section is interesting and has some valid points.

        Does the FairTax improve compliance and reduce evasion when compared to the current income tax?

        This section is interesting and has some valid points too, but don’t under-estimate the creative of people trying to avoid taxes (see SUFA!) or the efforts of lobbyist to tweak this system to their advantage (my industry/goods/services should be exempt because it’s too “important” to tax…)

        Two of the largest economies in the world rely almost solely on sales taxes: Florida and Texas.

        Oh, really bad examples. Both are highly regressive…

        Irish Miracle

        Oh, another really bad – and dated – example…

        Billions of dollars in compliance costs are wasted each year, and we have nothing of value to show for this expenditure — not one single productive service or product is added to our nation’s wealth.

        You might want to ask H&R Block and TurboTax about this! 😉

        Are gaming activities taxed under the FairTax?

        So one industry is taxed. I don’t care about the gaming industry, but why not tax THAT industry too? And THAT one?

        30 percent. This issue is often confusing, so we explain more here.

        Oh yeah, I was wondering when the 30% was going to show up…

        So just to be clear, if you spend $1, the tax is 30 cents…

        I understand the arguments, reasons, and math, but 23% just sounds better than 30%. This always makes me wonder what else are they ‘sugar coating” in their proposal…

        Is the FairTax progressive? Do the rich pay more and the poor pay less as a percentage of their spending?

        Again, “Annual income = Annual Expenditures”. And most people just gloss right over this, because for most people (Middle and Lower income) it is true. But they don’t understand the huge savings this misconception is for the “evil rich” people…

        How does the FairTax protect low-income families and individuals and retirees on fixed incomes?

        I see some issues with the administration of the rebate or prebate. What about my 17 year old kid who moves out on his own? Does he have to apply for it? Can I still claim him? What about an 18 year old still at home? Or going to college but supported by the family?

        There are also a lot of assumptions about rosy economic growth thru this, even though they admit no major economy (or the largest in the world) has ever switched to this.

        You know, a big stimulus package would have the same effect! (oh calm down, I’m just yanking-your-chain!)

        Is it fair for rich people to get the exact same FairTax rebate from the federal government as the poorest person in America?

        They make a fatal miscalculation with the billionaire. They assume the $10,000,000 he spends equals his income to calculate “His effective tax rate as a percent of spending is 22.95 percent.”

        The $10,000,000 is also a pretty big assumption…while the middle-income married couple spending $50,000 is pretty much most of their income…

        I’m running out of time and energy, and I still have to straighten out the Colonel (you should try dealing with 8 people all throwing questions at you at once!). You can start picking this apart for now.

        There’s a lot of assumptions in the last bunch of points. I’ll get to them sometime soon.

        But a final thought – if taxes are THEFT or a PENALTY, isn’t this still THEFT or a PENALTY? If the government taxes something (consumption), we get less of it, right???????? 😉

    • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

      Sometimes I wonder. Do you guys really think rich people keep all their money in a series of money bins like Uncle Scrooge and then swim in their money? Rich people spend their money. They spend lot of it. They would pay huge sales taxes on the money they spend. Exempt rent, house payments and food from the sales tax and they would pay a much higher percent of income than the middle class. Quite a difference between Joe Schmoo and his two moderate priced cars and Freddie Richguy and his five cars at least two of which will either be BMW’s or Mercedes. It’s like common sense for God’s sake!

      • Stephen, so long as you guys try to categorize us “lefties” as those who regard “rich people” as “evil”, etc., there’s really no point in explaining ourselves beyond what you’ll attack as the talk of parasites …:)

        I believe in one Marxist concept that doesn’t permit private property. I don’t the wealthy for doing what they will always do to protect their interests, no matter how they obtained it, legally under the law or not … nor do I consider them evil. I consider the economic system as inherently evil as regards the greater good. The wealthy are doing what they need do, including using SUFA-like sites to brainwash some people into believe their “liberty” will be gone should they opt for a different, more equitable system. I don’t believe in private property … it’s borrowed … for the time we’re around, that’s it … it shouldn’t be left wholesale to our descendants (not all of it and certainly not land, etc.) … if the argument is to be hard work leads to just rewards, then I suggest doing away with inheritence and letting the offspring work hard … 🙂 As to what the wealthy do with their money … well, for one thing, they hold the rest of the country hostage … either by owning the government outrights (which they do) … or by holding onto cash (i.e., corporations) waiting for some numbskull politician to do with Obama did with Monsanto last week …

        • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

          Many, many years ago, there was this fellow called Norcross. Besides Hallmark, he was the only game in town. When he died (I was a boy), he left his entire fortune to charity with minimal bequests to his four children. His position, “I gave them the best education possible, the best of my time and advice, they need nothing else to succeed.” I cannot say that I disagree with that thought.

          Of course, the challenged the will and wound up getting the bulk of the estate since protracted litigation would have diminished the fortune to nothing (except for the lawyers).

          I do not think your position or that of Mr. Norcross is that of a parasite, it is merely a position. What you do not take into account are folks like D-13 who have come into a family that has means, certainly not as great as the Rockefeller’s or Kennedy’s and have added to it. Now and then I get biblical. there is the parable of the King who doled out talents to his Overseers who then invested it (or not). He rewarded those who had improved his (and their) lot. He cast out the one who did nothing. While Jesus was talking about sharing the “Good News” the story told in the vernacular to the people at the time was understood. The non-performers are the true parasitic leaches.

          So, how do you administer it? Do you create a cap or do you screw everybody?

          Finally there is the issue of the national sales tax in lieu of the income tax. They spend it….we tax it. If you buy the damned yacht, you can sail it to the Caymans but you can’t hide it there like the Kennedy’s and Romney’s do with their cash. I shouldn’t even mention Romney since he has added greatly to the rather paltry fortune he came into.

          By the way, New Grandbaby at 10AM today, Catharine Grace, 9lb 6oz. (we grow ’em Texas size here). Mom, Dad, and big sis, Jackie 2 1/2 doing fine.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Congrats SK! 🙂

          • Congrats on the grandbaby! I had my first March 20 … it’s a beautiful thing.

            “What you do not take into account are folks like D-13 who have come into a family that has means, certainly not as great as the Rockefeller’s or Kennedy’s and have added to it.”

            I’m not sure how to handle it, Stephen. Why I don’t claim my way is the ONLY way. I wouldn’t want to see people get stripped of everything. I just don’t see how gazillions (for lack of a better term) can continually be passed along (with all the genuine power that money represents). Unlike Fl Patriots portrait of me, I’ve worked 2 and 3 jobs most of my life (including legitimate jobs when I was doing dirt on the streets). My wife works 2 jobs now. We are not proponents of people doing nothing for what they have, but … we are proponents of people getting a more fair shake. It just isn’t as easy to come out of the shit today as it may have been in 1950, etc. Lotto truly has become the American dream … and that’s sad. More another day. Rangers finally won a shootout. I may have a cardiac.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Charlie,, I don’t think you are a parasite. But on the issue of private property, we really don’t have much here in the US where there is property tax. Fail to pay your tax, they take your property. That is one thing that I will fight to change locally, because it’s bullshit that you pay for something and may lose it because you hit some bad times. 😦

          The government is not entitled to anything, from anybody. The only reason they can claim that is their monopoly on violence, don’t pay, get killed. Why do you care about inheritance? It’s none of your business, period! Why do you care about owning property and calling it yours? Because you don’t have none? Why is your nose so worried about others affairs? Are you just bored? Others business is none of your damn business, is it now? Prove me wrong, SLICK! 🙂

          • Wow, you’re wrong (as usual) and so many counts, G 🙂

            We own our house. We shouldn’t but we do.

            We will leave our kids money. They shoudl get some, not all of it.

            Property is public, like it or not. The eart was here long before you, G … you own nothing you can’t hold in your pocket.

            Why are YOU so concerned about inheritence, G? Don’t you want yours to work hard, just like you and everybody else at SUFA? 🙂

            Proving you wrong … a second’s worth of effort … proving you sane, even less time. 🙂

            • Ooops, Proving you sane … impossible!

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Charlie, Don’t pay your property tax and you will not own your house for to long, so I’m not wrong. There won’t be an inheritance to worry about in my family, so that’s never going to be an issue. My property is not public (as long as I pay the taxes) and the law says so. That’s easy to prove.

              Once again Charlie, the only thing you have proven is that you wear a dunce cap way to often, BWAHAHAHA 🙂

            • Bottom Line says:

              ” Property is public, like it or not.”

              ” you own nothing you can’t hold in your pocket. ”

              Get out of our house then…and leave the keys to the vehicle. I’ll try to clean up after the party.

              On second thought… since you trade your time and effort for money to buy property, and if that property is public, then you are by order of your logic, public property also.

              So, public slave, you’ll be sticking around to act as a server. Make sure the yard is cut and looking nice for the homeless crack-heads I’m going to round up as guests.


            • Bottom Line says:

      • Stephen,

        Do you guys really think rich people keep all their money in a series of money bins like Uncle Scrooge and then swim in their money?

        No, they invest it – tax free now thanks to FLPatriot!! 😉

        Rich people spend their money. They spend lot of it.

        So you think rich people SPEND ALL OF THEIR INCOME?

        Do you think they got rich by SPENDING ALL OF THEIR INCOME? They spend a lot of money, but not a BIG percentage of their income. So any type of consumption tax gives them a break.

        Exempt rent, house payments and food from the sales tax and they would pay a much higher percent of income than the middle class.

        Exempt house payments? Have you ever seen the houses rich people live in?

        Who gets the bigger tax break?

        Joe Schmoo in his 3 bedroom $125,000 house? $37,500! That might buy you a used SUV now-a-days (avoid the FLP tax!)

        Or Freddie Richguy in his 8 bedroom, 10 bathroom, indoor pool, car elevator $10,000,000 “house”? Let’s see, $10,000,000 divided by…carry the 4…I think the $2,300,000 tax break you just gave him will buy a few cars – and the BMW and Mercedes will be the “beaters”…

        This is what I keep saying – you guys don’t understand LARGE NUMBERS, and the impact these things have on Freddie Richguy…

        Sometimes I wonder…but not very often…

  14. JAC,
    So your definition of “equal” is that the percentage of taxation, or change in taxation, is the same?

    I used the “total dollar amount” because FLPatriot said he doesn’t like percentages. He likes using “real dollar amounts.”

    By focusing only on percentages, it might look equal/fair, but then you are choosing to ignore the REAL economic impact of tax changes.

    If you want to “CUT THE TAXES FOR RICH FOLKS UNTIL IT EQUALS THAT OF POOR FOLKS” then no one will pay any taxes. See how that works out for our country…

    As I told Anita, I’d like to “Get rid of all deductions (or most – we could discuss keeping a few), treat all income equally, and use the existing tax-rates. Is that simple enough?”

    Yes, the rich will pay more – both as a percentage and total dollar amount.

    The “THEFT” argument is the SHALLOW, FALSE, and SUPERFLUOUS argument. It is AVOIDING and RUNNING AWAY from the issue because if you call taxation “THEFT,” then there’s nothing else to discuss. It’s a stupid argument.

    I used the REAL VALUE INSTEAD OF % INCOME because so many people don’t understand large numbers, and how a small change in percentage can have a big impact in REAL DOLLARS.

    And yes, I think $150,000 is a bigger deal than $1,500. To argue that it isn’t, or might not be, is stupid.

    I know some “CONSERVATIVES” OR “REPUBLICANS” UNDERSTAND THAT AN EQUAL PERCENT APPLIED TO INCOME RESULTS IN DIFFERENT INCOMES, but I also know that many do not, and they fall for the “percentages are equal” argument.


    I’ve never seen you lay out a plan to fund government. But if it’s A FLAT PER CAPITA TAX, how is that not THEFT?

    How much would it have to be PER CAPITA to actually fund the government?

    What would you do with the people who can’t pay the tax? Throw them in DEBTOR PRISON?

    How would you determine the amount of the MANY USER FEES?

    Do you think these USER FEES might be structured to impact one GROUP of people more than another GROUP?

    This would be the most regressive tax structure ever.

    • Todd, you cannot eliminate all deductions, treat unearned income the same as earned and keep the same tax rates. That would essentially be a huge tax increase. Businesses still need to deduct the cost of doing business else you will be taxing gross receipts instead of net profit. High volume low margin business would be unfairly treated.

      What about overseas corporations that sell product in the US but do not produce any income taxes for the manufacture of those products? A national sales tax instead of corporate income taxes, would apply equally to all manufactured goods independent of origin.

      As for theft, when my money is forcibly taken from me or taken with a threat of severe penalty and then squandered and wasted it is theft. If I get real value in return for that money than I will give it willingly. Unfortunately, there is much waste and overreach in the Federal government. Consider that every time the Feds kick back money to the states, that is an admission that they overtaxed us at the Federal level.

      • The one basic concept that the left ignores is that taxes are a penalty. When the government taxes something we get less of it. So when you tax income it will result in less income, the laffer curve defines this fairly well.

        But since the left wants to continue creating a consumer based economy they will not tax consumption. Instead we are killing the production based economy that created this country by taxing earnings.

        The other basic rule of economics that the left ignores is that wealth flows from the consumer to the producer.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          FLP, Giving the Lefties facts will only confuse them. The whole left wing ideology is based on lies, nothing more or less, just lies. Most everything they say can usually be proven wrong. They listen to idiots like Krugman and Chris Mathews and then stay at a Holiday Inn Express so they can debate 😆

      • Just A Citizen says:


        I disagree with your conclusion on deductions. You in fact can eliminate them all. It is in fact the closest we will get to a FAIR “income” tax system.

        Using Gross Income in a business is no different than paying RENT on building space. It is easier in fact to calculate the affect on your business model and thus plan for future growth.

        The RATE, however must be far LOWER than the rates in our current system. Somewhere at or below 10%.

        • JAC, I think you misunderstood T-Ray.

          “you cannot eliminate all deductions, treat unearned income the same as earned and keep the same tax rates. ”

          T-Ray said the same thing as you. You cannot eliminate all deduction if you keep the same tax rates.

          The thing that makes me nervous is when a progressive talks about eliminating tax breaks, or loop-whole, because you can almost be certain they will not consider lowing the tax rates at the same time. I would be 100% behind eliminating all tax breaks, even for charities, if and only if tax rates are lowered simultaniously. But no Democrat or progressive will consider lowering rates so the idea of eliminating tax breaks will fail.

          Besides, tax breaks is how politicians buy campaign support, they will never let go of that power.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            I agree we are generally saying the same thing in general.

            I was more focused on his statement about Business taxes. I have played with this a lot and think Gross tax is quite plausible.

            Although I would prefer ELIMINATING all taxes on businesses and focus on the INDIVIDUAL.

            This would require extensive re-write of laws to eliminate the shelter of corporations from individual taxation. Perhaps the gross revenue would have to be distributed proportionally to ALL shareholders. Just as is done with S-Corps and Partnerships.

            Another alternative is to require distribution of NET INCOME to shareholders for purpose of taxation. Those holding back cash will have to deal with shareholders who are paying the tax on income they did not receive. Just like happens with those small business people in the “rich bracket” already.

            • JAC, I have no problem with a GRT if it is labeled that. Don’t call it an income tax with no business expense deductions. A sales tax is essentially a GRT for retailers. A GRT should be passed through directly to the customer (final consumer) as a sales tax is since the customer always pays anyway. All taxes should be a separate line item so we are constantly reminded of how much the government is getting.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                The Income Tax on Gross revenue cannot be passed to the consumer like a sales tax.

                The tax is not collected by the seller. It is paid by the seller on gross receipts. Adding the tax to the value simply increases the gross revenue and thus the tax.

                Not to say the seller won’t try to pass it on or that it will not be reflected in pricing. But if the value is not there in the product then the sales will suffer.

                The purpose of this idea is massive simplification AND to put the cost of Govt UP FRONT.,

                When people realize that Uncle Sugar ALWAYS comes first in getting paid, then our relationship to Govt will become more REAL.

                Like I said, I prefer and INDIVIDUAL tax with Business exempt from taxation. But we have to address the issue of using the business as a living expense for that to work.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      1. “So your definition of “equal” is that the percentage of taxation, or change in taxation, is the same?”

      NO and I didn’t say it was my “definition”. I said that using a percentage of income is more equal than using the dollar value saved as a measure.


      A 10% RATE applied to different incomes is the SAME and therefore EQUAL. Both get 10% tax or tax cut, both are the same, both are equal. 10% = 10%.

      And of course, if Rich and Poor paid the same dollar amount in tax they would be EQUAL. $1000 = $1000. Note, the issue is equal not whether it would fund the Govt adequately.

      First you must address the differences between Theft and Voluntary payment, then you must address the issues of Justice, as in EQUALITY under the law. These are the guideposts from which Tax Policy, among others, should be devised.

      However, claiming that the SAME percentage of unequal incomes is somehow “not equal” because of the dollar value is simply silly. If the starting point is not the same you cannot get the SAME result without apply UNEQUAL percentages.

      This is the INEQUITY of the Progressive theory. Equality is based on treating people DIFFERENTLY. In effect EQUALITY becomes an Oxymoron in Progressive theory, or at least in the rhetoric. Unequal = Equal.

      This leads to Govt by special interest for the special interest. Once you admit that Govt can pick winners or losers, friend or foe, then you get what we have today.

      Note that we are discussing the equity of Govt policy. The only thing within reach of that policy is the TAX RATE. The income is that of the individual. So to treat each person EQUALLY means that your policy must apply the SAME RATE or the SAME AMOUNT upon them. But you cannot use either in an UNEQUAL fashion.

      Now here is another point missed by most when trying to use this “value” or “economic” impact argument.

      You support the “progressive tax” system. Thus you have increasing “Marginal Rates”.

      This means that the tax cut to the upper income has NOTHING to do with the lower income. It is a reduction in taxes ONLY for those whose income qualifies for the higher “marginal rate”.

      In other words, the Rich Man and the Poor Man pay EXACTLY the same amount of tax on the same amount of income. It is only the Rich Man who pays tax on the higher income because it is only he who qualifies for that higher tax rate.

      This whole argument of using the total dollars saved as a comparison of “unequal” benefits is nothing but an argument based on ENVY. It is a play on the age old Marxist strategy of Class Warfare.

  15. @ Todd……income mobility….so far, I have found no other definition of than the movement of one quintile to another and the quintiles are always going to be 20 % which I find to be ludicrous as it does not legitimately define a group. However, to broaden the definition of “mobility” to include the ABILITY to be able to move from one quintile to another is a cause/effect proposition. Because the quintiles are fixed at 20% and they are ever shifting, it seems to me that it is all a false argument. For example, if a low income person is in the bottom quintile, and gets a substantial raise to the next quintile above…..that is considered upward mobility. If a person in the highest quintile makes a bad investment and his/her income is lowered and, consequently, falls into the next lower quintile, then that is graded as downward mobility. Pretty easy definitions to follow EXCEPT..the percentages that define quintiles do not change.

    So for purposes of the discussion of income mobility…..we shall keep the discussion centered on income…….and drop the social aspects of it. Social mobility, often associated with income mobility, is what we pilots call a false horizon.

    Therefore, it is important to realize that income mobility is related to income (total income) and not refined to mean disposable income. So, for the purposes of discussing with you…I will address your broadened definition to include the ability to move from one quintile to another…..or, in layman’s terms, to make more money.

    Many like to point to the “European model” in contrast to the United States. This is where everything gets really skewed because Europe is NOT AT ALL the United States……two completely different models. One leans very heavily socialist (Europe) and one leans very heavy Capitalist (USA). “Europe is a continent with high marginal tax rates, a plethora of public service jobs, and generous social services. As a result, many highly talented Europeans choose to pursue careers that don’t pay much. Whereas, In America, in contrast, high-ability individuals of all generations will almost invariably choose occupations in which they end up earning high incomes. To the extent that intelligence and ability are either hereditary or result from high-quality parenting, children of high achievers will also tend to be high achievers.”

    PEW research says “the image of the United States as a rigid class society results from looking only at relative measures of income mobility, i.e. moves among different income strata of the society. A look at absolute income mobility provides a more cheerful picture. Eighty-four percent of Americans have incomes that exceed what their parents earned at a similar stage in life, according to the study. The figure is 93 percent for those raised in the bottom quintile of the income distribution.

    There was considerable income mobility of individuals in the U.S. economy during the 1996 through 2008 period as over half of taxpayers moved to a different income quintile over this period. Roughly half of taxpayers who began in the bottom income quintile in 1996 moved up to a higher income group by 2008.

    Among those with the very highest incomes in 1996 – the top 1/100 of 1 percent – only 25 percent remained in this group in 2008. The median real income of these taxpayers declined over this period.

    Economic growth resulted in rising incomes for most taxpayers over the period from 1996 to 2008. Median incomes of all taxpayers increased by 24 percent after adjusting for inflation. The real incomes of two-thirds of all taxpayers increased over this period. In addition, the median incomes of those initially in the lower income groups increased more than the median incomes of those initially in the higher income groups.

    In contrast, since 2008, the impact on the quintiles with the current administration have fallen…..even more so for the lower quintiles. They have regressed due to the policies that have changed since 2008…namely namely the erosion of the private enterprise system, and the existence of barriers to economic opportunity for the poorest. In the present economic, political, and ideological environment, entrepreneurial success is difficult to achieve, and when achieved, it is taxed, regulated heavily, and sneered at in the infamous “you-didn’t-build-that” style.

    So, now it boils down to the “slice of economic pie”……Most of your leading economists (cough cough) believe the following: “Existing barriers to economic opportunity need to be lifted, especially those with a disproportionately debilitating effect on economic opportunity for the least well-off. The list is long: prohibitive regulations of certain professions and uncertainty about future tax rates, but also minimum wages, unionization, and constraints on parents’ choice of schools and school districts.” D13 discounts economist theories because they are like belly buttons….everybody has one…however, D13 asserts that this is relatively on target…which also points to Todd’s broadened definition of ABILITY.

    Is the ABILITY there for ALL income quintiles to move upward. All of the studies and evaluations show that until 2008, all the faactors were in place for upward income mobility. Did the rich get richer…..of course they did. Why? Because they had more to invest and, therefore, greater income. Did the poorest of the poor get richer….the data says yes…… Everyone had greater purchasing power, more money and bought more goods and services than ever before THROUGH 2008…..ESPECIALLY THE LOWEST QUINTILES. The lowest quintiles had the greater upward income mobility than the higher quintiles.

    So, how is ability affected” The years from the 80’s to 2008 (even Clinton) recognized that removing barriers creates income…especially for the lower income groups.

    So, Todd, it is apparent that income mobility was moving in the right direction until 2008. Everyone had a piece of the pie, so to speak, because there was a bigger pie. When you strangle competition, business, and entrepreneurship, you reduce the share of the pie.

    The data suggests, and most economists agree, that the barriers to upward mobility is not the fact that the rich get richer…but there are barriers purposely put into place to keep the poor……….poor. I think that the discussion on the barriers that limit upward mobility is where the subject needs to be…..because you have to attack the root problem. The prevention of upward mobility by design.

    Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplements, Table H-2. Share of Aggregate Income Received by Each Fifth and Top 5 Percent of Households, All Races: 1967 to 2009.

    U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplements, Table H-3. Mean Household Income Received by Each Fifth and Top 5 Percent, All Races: 1967 to 2009. These data can be found here:

    U.S. Treasury Department, (2008). Income Mobility of the United States from 1996 to 2005, Washington, D.C. It can be found here:

    Sorry for the long diatribe……

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Based on your post, I would say that Leftist policies suck, completely 🙂

    • Just A Citizen says:


      From within one of your citations. Very interesting. Note that they had to adjust income based on “tax laws”.

      Two 1992 Treasury studies (1992a and 1992b) examined mobility during the period from
      1979 to 1988 using a panel that followed 14,351 income tax returns over the period and
      controlled for changes in the definition of income due to changes in the tax law.

      The Treasury data showed that 86 percent of taxpayers in the lowest income quintile in 1979
      had moved to a higher quintile by 1988 and 15 percent of them had moved all the way to
      the top quintile. Among those who were in the top quintile in 1979, 65 percent remained
      in the top quintile in 1988, and only 1 percent had dropped to the lowest quintile. The
      high degree of mobility reported by this study resulted from several features of the analysis, most importantly the inclusion of taxpayers under age 25, the lack of data on Social Security benefits for older taxpayers, and comparison to the full taxpayer population. When the sample was limited to taxpayers age 25 to 64 and compared to taxpayers in the panel, rather than to all taxpayers aged 25 to 64, the Treasury study showed that 50 percent of the lowest income quintile had moved to a higher quintile after 10 years. Thus, the results were very similar to Sawhill and Condon when a comparable sample and mobility measure were used.

      • Interesting, wasn’t it?

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Yes it was very interesting. Especially since the data seems to be contradictory to several other articles/studies I read the past couple weeks.

          I’ve been trying to pull together some stuff on this as well. I am now trying to find a graph I built from BEA data showing that the WEALTH of Americans had been increasing during this time as well.

          Wealth being measured as Income – Expenses = Wealth. In other words, Savings and growth in Asset Equity.

          This data ALSO runs contrary to the Urban Legends spread by media and certain academics.

          The reason for the growth, by the way, was primarily due to REDUCED expenses. While Income growth slowed, the expenses slowed even faster, with an increased PROFIT margin over time.

          Now lets see how many here can guess why the Household expenses dropped.

          Oh, I found this relationship while trying to prove that inflation had destroyed the Net Income of lower income groups since 1970. The data did not support my hypothesis. However, the data was based on mean and median values. Not a distribution nor by income groups. It would be nice to see how that differed but I simply couldn’t extract the data from BEA.

          • The normal person does not know how to extrapolate from government data. It is interesting that the system has the data….and the data does not lie, per se…….MSM will not extrapolate it and politicians will say whatever they want because they know that noone will go to the data…and if they do…..most do not jnow how to read it much less interpret it.

            • Then you have Huffpo and the like cherry picking one number without taking into context the entire range and reason for the data. People need to wake up.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      I must take exception to your conclusions about the “cause” of reduced mobility since 2008.

      I don’t believe it is primarily due to this Administration’s policies nor those of the Congress. At least not those put in place since 2007. There have been some affect but not to the point of blaming them on the current situation. This affect is the extent to which these policies are delaying or muting the “recovery”.

      The “primary” cause is rooted in the Recession itself and the fact it was driven by a collapse in housing prices and construction. If we look at income over time we find that ALL income groups decline during recessions. Up until this one, the greatest drop as a percentage of income has always been among the top earners. This of course makes since because the greatest loss in a deflationary period is in “investment value”.

      Now with that said, I do think the policies put in place the last 6 years or so will act to stymie the mobility of the lower income groups over time. Inflation will destroy the growth in median income of the lower groups. There has also been a fundamental change in our over all economy. One that does not benefit the lower income groups because it works against those who think their fortune is to hold a 9 to 5 job that pays ever increasing wages.

      • I can go with your conclusions with one exception…….while the policies have had no direct effect in quantum,… cannot rule out the long term decisions made to avoid the pitfalls of the implementation of the current policies…once and if they are implemented fully…..whaddya think? For example, we have made the decision as a family to sit tight…..which means we have kept money out of the system to ride out future impact if nothing is changed.

        • Less money = less income = less taxes = lower mobility.
          Less money = less availability to lower income = less productivity = less buying power = lower mobility.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Mid to long term the policies will DESTROY lower and middle income “mobility” in my view.

          The RICH will not suffer under the high inflation like the middle and poor. The RICH will not pay all the burden of the increased DEBT FINANCE costs once the bonds turn to shit.

          Etc, etc, etc,.

          Short version….. I agree with you on the mid to long term.

          I also agree that the polices are creating DRAG on the recovery NOW. In other words, we should be seeing the mobility increasing after the decrease caused by the recession. Yet the data does not show this increase yet. That is DRAG in Spades!!

  16. Uh oh…….someone that knows how needs to let my comments hit the blog……it is awaiting moderation. It is on income mobility.

  17. gmanfortruth says:
  18. Then there is the argument of “perception” when it comes to fairness in income mobility and the ABILITY to earn more. I submit that Pavlov was not stupid in his conclusions.

  19. Calvin Coolidge – “It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”

    Started reading “Coolidge” by Amity Shlaes. This quote jumped out to me as some good advice our current congress.

  20. gmanfortruth says:

    I happen to agree with the Sheriffs in this case (not a shock there). I think that if Leftist’s ideology is determined to be UnConstitutional on a regular basis, maybe we should deny the right for leftist’s to pass laws (which I think that both sides should be cut off).

  21. gmanfortruth says:

    Oh My! This should make everyone really happy. While it may not effect you now, they will try at some point. Taxes, Todd should like this one, 😆

    • Well, here is what you do. It is very simple. We have stopped the EPA cold on our ranch land. We do not allow them in and we meet them at the gate armed. We have shot down one drone already and will shoot down any others we can see. I would recommend that all residents do this. The EPA is trying to find out how we feed our cattle and if they crap in the streams. The EPA also wants us to do game management to keep as much wildlife from rivers and streams as we can. We told them to go to hell, of course. It is none of their business. it is ridiculous


    Yesterday it was infertility insurance coverage for same sex couples, today it is an attempt to drive all small restaurants out of business. What next? What are they smoking in Sacramento? We need the big one to slide the coastal cities into the ocean.

    • T Ray….. I want to see one leftist or progressive on here,,,,,Todd, etal…… this and the reasons for it without talking points about health.

      • A local businessman purchased a closed quarry a couple of years ago in the hopes of reopening it. He spent thousands on getting all the necessary licenses and permits not to mention equipment. He repeatedly asked if he had done everything required and was told yes. He hired 4 employees but before he could move on scoop of rock, another agency appeared out thin air and said he needed a special permit to release dust into the air even though he had all the equipment and procedures to eliminate dust from escaping the site. Since he had not paid the required fee, he was additionally fined. Needless to say he gave up and walked away.

        We have two mountain ranges full of rock and timber but import both. There are 2 sawmills within 25 miles of me that have closed since I moved here. Heck, many of the old mountain roads have been closed to vehicles so access to the forest is now limited to foot traffic in those areas. Gold is a four letter word. Suction dredge mining is outlawed. The central valley has 15B barrels of oil and shale oil under it but no concerted effort to retrieve it. We have cut off water to about 25% of the fertile acreage in the central valley.


    • CA Moves to Strip Boy Scouts, Christian Youth Groups of Nonprofit Status

      by Ben Shapiro 10 Apr 2013, 4:58 PM PDT 128 post a comment View Discussion
      In a move that foreshadows the radical left’s plans for churches should gay marriage become the law of the land, the California legislature is moving to strip the Boy Scouts of America – a private organization – of its non-profit status for refusing to allow gay scoutmasters. The Youth Equality Act, created by Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Long Beach), would deny nonprofit status to any youth groups that “discriminate on the basis of gender identity, race, sexual orientation, nationality, religion or religious affiliation.” This would invalidate any Christian nonprofit that does not accept non-Christians, any youth group restricted to boys or girls, or any similar group.

      The Senate Governance and Finance Committee voted 5 to 2 to send the bill to the Senate Appropriations Committee. The Senate would need to sign off with a two-thirds vote.

      Should same-sex marriage be ruled law in the state of California by the Supreme Court, undoubtedly the left will move immediately to strip churches of their state nonprofit statuses if they refuse to perform same-sex marriages.


    Since I’m supposed to analyze this and not just post it for general discussion-This guy is a total ass-he is not a teacher-and he is being paid to brainwash your children-he is nothing more than an arm of the democrat party and he doesn’t belong in a classroom.

    • VH: So far as I can see (from the video), there isn’t much there that’s bullshit. Seems pretty obvious to me he has an agenda, but what’s wrong with that? The guy who took the video obviously had an agenda as well. People will either figure it out for themselves or they won’t, but I doubt they’ll go out and vote because of one person says.

      These types (pro democratic sycophants) are who piss true lefties like myself off the most. Because we don’t see the Democratic Party as an alternative to the Republican Party. We see it as Republican Light, although in probably more cases than not, Obama is Bush on steroids. Obama, to true lefties, is as useless as tits on a bull.

      • And to be fair, VH … I think he’s a terrible teacher and I’d fire his tenured ass if I were the President of whatever institution he “teaches” at … this coming from Captain Cannoli of the Pinko Commi Leftwing Socialists of America team 🙂

        • I’m glad we agree-but good luck with firing him-Unions tend to frown on that, especially when the man helps their cause.

          • Well, lets replace the political and economic system, and then we won’t need unions … nor will we need what the corporations (Monsanto) pulled last week …

            • Someone in government or big business, which as far as I’m concerned includes unions these days-usually in collusion- pull something constantly Charlie-but even that is better than a few elite dictators making all the decisions which, I’m sorry but that is what I believe your ideas will lead too.

              As far as unions, I actually think we need unions or would need them again if they completely disappeared but we need real unions, run by the people who actually work at a specific company-not huge money making, government backed entities that are nothing more than corporations in all but name.

      • What’s wrong with that Charlie-is that he is supposed to be a teacher-not a paid spokesman for the democrat party. I want my children taught to think-not be told what to think by teachers with an agenda. And if people are taught in school from grade school what they are supposed to think-then we’re talking brainwashing not teaching.

        Here’s another little nugget of brainwashing that started wayyyyyy before college.

        Conservatism means ‘restricting personal freedoms’ according to public school crossword
        7:57 AM 04/11/2013

        Eighth graders in Union Grove, Wisc. — a tiny enclave just over the Illinois border — are learning reading, writing, arithmetic and, of course, that conservatives are a bunch of authoritarian, oppressive thugs.

        As EAGnews explains, an unnamed eighth-grade teacher in the Union Grove school district assigned a vocabulary crossword puzzle with clues containing “definitions” of liberalism and conservatism.

        Conservatism, according to the public school assignment, is “the political belief of preserving traditional moral values by restricting personal freedoms and encouraging prosperity through economic freedom.”
        Ads by Google

        Let that ridiculous middle part soak in, perhaps while you gulp down a massive sugary soda and take target practice with your favorite firearm.

        How are impressionable Union Grove eighth graders instructed about liberalism? They are indoctrinated that it is “the political belief of equality and personal freedom for everyone, often changing the current system to increase government protection of civil liberties.”

        Sounds wonderful, huh?

        Local conservative activist Tamra Varebrook forwarded the assignment — apparently from a civics curriculum — to EAGnews after her 13-year-old daughter brought it home earlier this week.

        “I think it’s horribly distorted and it’s biased,” Varebrook told the website. “It’s insinuating conservatives don’t believe in people having civil liberties. That it’s only for old-fashioned fuddy-duddies.”
        Ads by Google

        “Every piece of homework I’ve seen paints conservatism in a negative light,” she added. “I can only imagine what high school is going to bring.”

        The back side of the crossword puzzle contained a lengthy political survey that obliged students to declare their beliefs on issues such as guns.

        Varebrook noted that her daughter has little time or patience for politics or political philosophy and “was just happy to get it filled out.”

        Beyond the two woefully circular descriptions so commonly provided by dictionary writers, Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary defines conservatism as a “disposition in politics to preserve what is established” and “a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change.”

        There is nary a mention of restrictions on freedom. In fact, Merriam-Webster goes on to observe that conservative political programs typically call for “lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs.”

        Read more:

        • Oh, I forgot-no I do not agree with every word in this article-following conservative policies will restrict some personal freedoms but then so does following progressive policies. But that isn’t the point, the point is the teacher purposely pointing out the negative in one and promoting the other as all good.

        • “I want my children taught to think-not be told what to think by teachers with an agenda. And if people are taught in school from grade school what they are supposed to think-then we’re talking brainwashing not teaching.”

          Aren’t you brainwashing them by telling them what you believe? That’s my biggest problem with home schooling, by the way, aside from the lack of socialization, is the brainwashing that gets done (intentionally or not). BF claimed he wouldn’t let his kid attend public schools (any schools if I’m not mistaken) … I tend to think much of BF claimed was bullshit anyway, but there are those who follow that line of thought/reasoning … isn’t that the same thing?

          Now, I happen to think the guy is a horrible teacher, don’t get me wrong, but not becuase he has an opinion. We’re all humans and our opinions are going to spill out in one form or another. Come on, now … y ou’re all supposed to be great champions of liberty here.

          • No, it’s not the same thing-I’ve been sitting here trying to figure out a good way to answer this question-but in truth I find it such a weird question I don’t know what to say. It is my responsibility to raise my child-my responsibility to try and teach them right from wrong-to allow them to grow and learn in a safe environment.

            • Except … your version of right vs wrong is just as subjective as the idiot in the video. You post an awful lot about the “left” here (the implication being a bad word) … how would your children think anything different of the left if you espouse your feelings in front of them. It’s your version of right and wrong, but no less subjective than the teachers. I know it’s frustrating to deal with (trust me) …

          • Just A Citizen says:


            I think you have a serious error in your perception of what most home schooling looks like.

            First of all, if a parent is going to “indoctrinate” their children on certain moral/ethical or other values, that is going to happen whether they are in public school or not.

            Second, home schooling is about teaching ACADEMIC and ART subjects. My neighbors, for example, included music lessons, voice lessons, art lessons, swimming and horseback riding as part of their education. This is in addition to heavy curriculum in math, reading, writing and history.

            Yes, they include religious teaching and bible reading as well. But those would occur independent of public school.

            Their children are exposed to other children and adults through their activities and other public functions. Just like all kids. What they are NOT exposed to is the “interactions” and associated “behavior” that occurs in schools in between classroom sessions.

            Home schooled kids are also allowed to participate in regular school extracurricular activities, like sports, in the three states where I have lived.

            • JAC, I’m not against it (i.e., it should happen). I just don’t think it’s the wisest choice and wouldn’t choose it for my own kids (didn’t). When you say: “Second, home schooling is about teaching ACADEMIC and ART subjects.”

              So, then, hopefully they won’t see on the Rockefeller Center facade what Glenn Beck saw (the communist conspiracy).

              Once you’re into the core subjects, Reading and History, say, objectivity flies out the window, I would think … plus they don’t get to hear what other kids their own age might think. Yes, indoctrination takes place first and foremost at the home … exactly my point. So why not let other voices in the room, rather than lock them out?

              • Just A Citizen says:


                What Glenn Beck saw was pretty accurate.

                Read my comment again. Home schooled kids ARE exposed to others.

                The reasons for NOT sending them to school are pretty good given what our schools are today versus what they were when we went to those schools.

                I sent mine to public school. It was good but not nearly as good as what I got. I would not send them to public school today. At least not the same schools.

              • charlie

                What Glenn Beck saw was pretty accurate.

                There’s no way to argue with that. What Glenn Beck saw was his own insanity … and by the way, did he ever realize the building FOX was in was part of the communist conspiracy?

                Read my comment again. Home schooled kids ARE exposed to others.

                Really? I don’t know how one could tell. Asians, Blacks, Hispanics, fat, skinny, pretty, not so good looking, etc.? Must be quite a community. Must take a village after all.

                The reasons for NOT sending them to school are pretty good given what our schools are today versus what they were when we went to those schools.

                In some cases, I’m sure you’re right, JAC, but not in all … or in most, I’d guess. There’s no way to tell with any level of accuracy. Would it make a different if some ignorant couple kept their kids home schooled? I think not. So, who determines the level of ignorance?

                I sent mine to public school. It was good but not nearly as good as what I got. I would not send them to public school today. At least not the same schools.

                Same here, almost. I did move to my sons could attend school in Port Washington on Long Island, one of the better school systems in NY. My daughter basically went to school by cab (back and forth) both ways, her entire 4 years. I provided the funding. Canarsie high school, in my opinion, had become too dangerous for white boys who weren’t playing on an athletic team, although my older son did run track at Port Wash. I was more concerned for their safety and education equally. I was very guilty of being selective, and to a degree, racist (as regards where I wanted them to attend school). Had Canarsie in Brooklyn been as good academically and/or as safe as Port Wash, I would have let them stay … but it wasn’t. There were race riots all 4 years I attended Canarsie … this back when it was 65% (or better) white. There haven’t been race riots since it’s mostly black, but minorities (even when they’re white) are likely to be the targets and I wasn’t willing to let my sons be such.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Charlie, You were a good father and cared about your kids. Nothing racist about that at all. The truth cannot be racist and schools with lots of blacks are just not safe schools to send your kids.

                My High School is a war zone everyday now. When I was there, it was very safe. Now, there are fights everyday and in some cases, outright riots. Why the change? It’s now about 80% black. That’s not racist, that is just the facts. It is just a small piece of the pie that says that blacks are violent. Their schools are not safe, their neighborhoods are not safe and they are just plain violent. Is that racist? 🙂

          • JAC chimed in while I was typing but here’s my 2 cents too.

            If you want to call it brainwashing then so be it. There are only so many subjects that are mandated by the state. Science, Social Studies/Geography/History/Government, Math, and Reading/Writing/Language/English, whatever your age level studies. The rest is all filler. The filler consists of whatever they feel like. For daughter..third year of college..was taught that the way to get out of our economic mess is to spend our way out. I certainly don’t want my kids thinking that is the right way to go. My son, 9th grade….showed me a video he had to was Obama proclaiming that we are in a recovery, unemployment was coming down..he left out the part that the number of jobs available has declined which in turn makes the unemployment number also go down. I watch preschool shows with my granddaughter. Vaccinations are good, winter holidays are good, two moms is good. Guess what? It ain’t all good where I come from. They, whoever they is, set the kids up right from the start, weather you agree or not. My son just brought me home a permission slip to be included in a focus group..the group meets once a year for three years, on ‘social issues’..didn’t explain what the issues were..but they want to see how kids change their views during the high school years. Uh, NO THANKS. I don’t know what they will be talking about, don’t know how they will use their info in tracking the kids, or me for that matter. NO! It’s none of their business. Another thing you keep harping on in regards to homeschooling..socializing with other kids. Waht? Do you think the homeschooled kids are in solitary confinement? I homeschooled for almost 2 years. My son did not lack a social life. Neighborhood, Facebook, Church, city sports teams..there is plenty of socializing going on without school. How do you think the kids survive during the summer months? Time to rethink your position on that one for sure. 😉

            I’m babbling now but schools should only be responsible to teach the required subjects..any thing else should be first learned at home..if not at home then the classes should just be elective..take it or leave it..then the parents have a choice too.

            • Anita, my love … how ON EARTH do you eliminate the human from teaching? Every teacher will have a subjective viewpoint on some issue or another. Some will be blatant assholes like the guy on the video, but others aren’t so. I had a Marxist teacher in college who I knew wanted Marxism spouted back at him … but I also had history teachers who more or less swore allegiance to the constitution without ever bringing up its shortcomings. It is what it is/we are what we are.

              Socializing … were all the kids your kids played with while being homeschooled white? Middle class? Rich? Poor? Asian? Black? Hispanic? Fat? Skinny? Pretty? Not so good looking? I’m not being cute … those are “other variables” that contribute to socialization it seems it woudl be hard to get from a home schooling environment.

              • I left out Musclim … 🙂

              • Than mispelled it. Oy vey …

              • You don’t eliminate the human. You eliminate what they are able to teach..unless the teacher is the parent.

                Charlie, Charlie, Charlie..from where I sit you are dead wrong on homeschooling in general, but more so on the socializing part of it.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Anita, all Charlie is doing is repeating what Chris Mathews says about homeschooling. The fact is that Charlie knows absolutely nothing about homeschooling. Maybe that’s why he is dead wrong, as usual 🙂

              • Let’s hear it for G! The lunatic side of the right’s argument has FINALLY arrived. I was beginning to worry about you, G? Thought maybe you saw the light and had joined the socialist party …

              • Anita, Anita, Anita, my love, my love, my love … “you eliminate what they are able to teach” … doll, if that’s not indoctrination/censorship/brainwashing … LOSS OF LIBERTY than I don’t know what is.

                And something tells me the majority of home schoolers, outside of those too poor to afford transportation, etc., are probably right wingers … which is an automatic WRONG … 🙂

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Charlie, I agree, terrible teacher. I think teachers should just teach the subject they are paid to teach and leave their opinions in the breakroom. A teachers political leanings and opinions do not belong in classrooms, ever! 🙂

            Hope you are well today old Chum 🙂

            • G, I agree … except you cannot separate a human being from themselves (not without a big knife) … I’m okay with him being a voice for reason (or unreason) so long as he makes it clear before a lecture begins and, more importantly, so long as he’s willing to permit the other side of a debate to voice itself. If not (which this lunatic clearly wasn’t willing to do), then Out he goes! No tenure (which I do not agree with anyway).

              • Except Charlie, a teacher is in a position of power-him spouting his opinions has already limited the freedom of the discussion before it has begun.

    • Substitute gay or muslim for republican and see what the response would be. Should be the same, right?

      • Any group would be offended by what he’s saying (like lefties are parasites offends lefties) but what makes him a bad teacher is he doesn’t allow his students to participate. He comes across as a little dictator. I doubt he’d handle counter arguments well (or at all). He should be fired for being a horrible teacher, not for what he espouses, although one should make clear what their politics are before they espouse them in a classroom, I think.

  24. Texas State Senate votes unanimously to drug test for welfare recipients. Any recipient found to be on drugs will be stripped of their welfare checks and food stamps and offered rehabilitation at State expense. Any welfare recipient that is positive of drugs and that has children…the children will be turned over to CPS. Upon leaving rehab and you are eligible for welfare and your children returned. If caught on drugs again… will be permanently barred from any type of public assistance.

    • D13, that is too much common sense, it will be challenged in court. Besides, how will Democrats turn texas blue if all their voters are in rehab?

    • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

      I have a question which has been on my mind for a while. If Galveston can opt out of Social Security for its county/city employees and put them in a private retirement plan, can the entire state do the same for all state employees? Might be an interesting thing to explore. In NY City, a number of City/union pension plans are privately managed and they have a great track record.

  25. Highway patrol gave feds Missouri weapon permits data

    By Rudi Keller

    Wednesday, April 10, 2013 at 4:19 pm

    JEFFERSON CITY – The Missouri State Highway Patrol has twice turned over the entire list of Missouri concealed weapon permit holders to federal authorities, most recently in January, Sen. Kurt Schaefer said Wednesday.

    Questioning in the Senate Appropriations Committee revealed that on two occasions, in November 2011 and again in January, the patrol asked for and received the full list from the state Division of Motor Vehicle and Driver Licensing. Schaefer later met in his office with Col. Ron Replogle, superintendent of the patrol.
    Share on emailEmail 965

    After the meeting, he said Replogle had given him sketchy details about turning over the list, enough to raise many more questions. Testimony from Department of Revenue officials revealed that the list of 185,000 names had been put online in one instance and given to the patrol on a disc in January.

    Schaefer has been investigating a new driver licensing system. He and the committee grilled the revenue officials for several hours in the morning and again at midday before they admitted the list had been copied. The investigation was triggered by fears that concealed weapons data was being shared with federal authorities.

    Under Missouri law, the names of concealed weapon permit holders are confidential. The only place in Missouri where the names of all concealed carry permit holders is stored is among driver license records. Permit holders have a special mark on their licenses indicating they have been granted the privilege of carrying a gun.

    The list was given to the Social Security Administration Office of Inspector General, Schaefer said he was told.

    “Apparently from what I understand, they wanted to match up anyone who had a mental diagnosis or disability with also having a concealed carry license,” Schaefer said. “What I am told is there is no written request for that information.”

    He said he intends to ask Replogle for full details at an appropriations committee hearing on the patrol’s budget on Thursday morning.

    The patrol responded by confirming that it had shared the list of concealed weapons holders with federal authorities.

    “The information was provided to law enforcement for law enforcement investigative purposes,” Capt. Tim Hull wrote in an email response to questions from the Tribune.

    The only way to obtain the full list is through a special request. Only law enforcement is supposed to have access to concealed carry information and then only on an individual basis. When a law enforcement officer looks up an individual’s driving record, it shows whether they have a concealed carry endorsement.

    The information raises numerous questions, Schaefer said.

    “When they turn over the entire list of concealed carry holders in the state of Missouri to the federal government, where is it going?” he said. “I want to know who all was involved in this transaction because if this is just some phone call saying give me the list of all concealed carry holders, how did the person at the patrol who fulfilled that request know who was at the other end of the phone? How did they know where to send it? How did they know what it was being used for?”

    The fact that the list had been copied two times was revealed when Sen. Rob Schaaf, R-St. Joseph, followed up on testimony that it was possible, through a batch request, to extract the list. Revenue Deputy Director John Mollenkamp said it had been done twice, for the highway patrol.

    Mollenkamp said he wasn’t sure what the patrol did with it while it was in that agency’s possession.

    Schaaf immediately suspected what Schaefer learned from Replogle later in the day. “Now we know two things,” he said. “We know that somebody out there, probably in the federal government, wants the list of all the concealed carry holders in Missouri. We know that now.

    “We know one other piece of information – we know the department is actively and purposefully concealing that information from us,” Schaaf said.

    My analysis-something illegal was just done which violates our privacy rights. Gun control measures based on mental illness is going to be used to strip us of our privacy rights. The Federal government is using it’s power to strip us of our privacy rights.

    • Just in case someone missed it-she is also a Professor at a College. She is quite good at wrapping crap in a pretty package-wonder how much she pushes her beliefs onto her students.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      I sure do enjoy listening to Kirsten Powers most of the time.

      I only wish her Fox hosts would change their style and allotted time to allow a fuller discussion when she is on the air.

    • I love … LOVE … what she had to say … and as for the 3 ditz’s on FOX NOISE … somebody needs to spike their coffee with caffeine …

      • Thank you Charlie-your endorsement of her comments-gives further proof that she is talking about much more than just helping needy kids. 🙂 Her choice of words -are proof that she isn’t just talking about being good charitable people -collective, parents and family don’t own their children . Well no, I don’t own my kids-they are not a piece of property that I can own-but they are my responsibility and as the parents of specific children- I will look out after their individual needs much better than a collective that might decide these particular children’s needs can be ignored for the good of the collective.

      • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

        I agree…. Comic relief is always important. I also know where she is coming from. With a 70 plus percent illegitimacy rate in black neighborhoods, the government already is the family of last resort. One wonders what held the black family together before the 1960’s in the bd old days.

        • “One wonders what held the black family together before the 1960′s in the bd old days.”

          Well, let’s see … it was 1965 (the voting rights act) … but before the then, geez, what could blacks possibly complain about? My God, I hope I’m reading you wrong … staggering, really.

          • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

            So, let me get this straight, the Voting rights act led to illegitimacy rates of 70 plus percent? Blacks complained about getting married, staying together and raising babies? Is that your take?

            My point was that a whole lot of other supposedly “good” things came to pass in the ’60’s.

  26. @VH “a teacher is in a position of power-him spouting his opinions has already limited the freedom of the discussion before it has begun.”

    In his case, yes, but there is no greater authority/power position than that of a parent. What say you to a parent’s limiting freedom? We all do it.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Charlie, Most kids grow up and are quite like their parents in many ways. This is a natural event based on how the child was raised. To claim that a parent is brainwashing a child is totally absurd. Any good parent would want their child to be like them when they grow up. It’s a natural thing. Calling it something else is just wearing a dunce cap again 🙂

    • I think they are two totally different subjects. As a parent that child is my responsibility-I may allow the school system to teach them certain things but I have not relinquished my right or responsibility to raise them.

      • But aren’t children supposed to be free too? There’s a chink in your armour, VH … consider me a BF-type ball breaker right now … you don’t “own” your children. Once they are born, they are their own human beings (isn’t that the pro life argument?) … they may be your responsibility, but does your responsibility include restricting their freedoms? I’d argue, yes, to a certain degree … but brainwashing? Nope.

        • I’m really not sure what your point is Charlie-Is it that because parents have “unfair” access to their own children teachers and others have the right to step in and try to under mind their teachings.

          Like I said we might be able to discuss these issue’s separately but surely Charlie you are not suggesting that the State has more rights to influence children than their own parents and family. Surely you are not suggesting that the State cares more about those individual children than their parents.

          Surely you can see the difference between teaching a child out of love and through years of family interaction and the State stepping in an indoctrinating a child to think a certain way usually based on politics.

          • Like I said we might be able to discuss these issue’s separately but surely Charlie you are not suggesting that the State has more rights to influence children than their own parents and family.

            Not at all, but gives a parent a right to withhold information from a child? Doesn’t seem like liberty to me. I’m not talking about obvious stuff like “Don’t play stickball on a highway”, but once you get to issues like “Communism is evil and I don’t want your teacher presenting an agenda otherwise.” Well, then you’re restricting your child’s liberty and knowledge and, quite frankly, brainwashing them. The reverse goes for a lefty teaching his/her child that capitalism or that wingies is/are evil.

            Surely you are not suggesting that the State cares more about those individual children than their parents.

            In some cases, I have no doubt that’s the case, but I don’t think it’s the state’s right to infringe to that degree. What I’m questioning is the parent’s right and how far they go. Children are people too …

            Surely you can see the difference between teaching a child out of love and through years of family interaction and the State stepping in an indoctrinating a child to think a certain way usually based on politics.

            One man’s love and family interaction can be another man’s dysfunction. I don’t believe a state has the right to indoctrinate, but to sever all ties to the outside world (especially political philosophies) is no less a suppression of liberty than living under state rule.

            • Different subject and much more complicated. Obviously children are individual human beings and as stated no one owns them. But and it’s a big butt-parents have the moral and the legal responsibility, not to mention the joy of taking care of them. This fact makes any rights the State has to step in a very big hurtle in my opinion. The State would have to prove harm, not just that they don’t like the beliefs of the family. Let’s look at the Amish-do you think the State has the right to step in and tell them they are separating their children from the world and they can’t do that anymore? I don’t think they have that right, even if some would claim they are brainwashing their children and denying them the philosophies of this world.

            • Bottom Line says:

              ” Not at all, but gives a parent a right to withhold information from a child? ”

              …because they created and are responsible for that child, thus it is their right to decide what that child is to be taught, denied, or sheltered from, etc, etc.

              ” Doesn’t seem like liberty to me.”

              That’s because you don’t understand liberty.

              ” I’m not talking about obvious stuff like “Don’t play stickball on a highway”, but once you get to issues like “Communism is evil and I don’t want your teacher presenting an agenda otherwise.” Well, then you’re restricting your child’s liberty and knowledge and, quite frankly, brainwashing them. The reverse goes for a lefty teaching his/her child that capitalism or that wingies is/are evil. ”

              If one doesn’t like what their children are being taught in school, they have every right to withdraw them, as well as teach them whatever philosophy they wish.

              ” In some cases, I have no doubt that’s the case, but I don’t think it’s the state’s right to infringe to that degree. What I’m questioning is the parent’s right and how far they go. Children are people too …”

              What you are doing is trying to justify intervention based on a subjective standard.

              ” One man’s love and family interaction can be another man’s dysfunction. ”

              One man’s love and family interaction isn’t another man’s business.

      • “-I may allow the school system to teach them certain things but I have not relinquished my right or responsibility to raise them.”

        There’s that “but” again. Certain things? So, if you don’t agree, the child doesn’t get to learn for itself?

        • That’s right Charlie, certain things. I don’t want other adults to choose what they learn and when they learn it. I think that’s my job. but I also don’t lock them up in the house -they learn most things sooner than they should. I wonder why you insist on creating a problem where there isn’t one.

  27. G: I think you want to word this differently: “It is just a small piece of the pie that says that blacks are violent.” At least I hope so .. but, no, I was part of a white flight I deplore when I I bought a house in Port Wash … it was for their education/safety but it shouldn’t have to have been. Still, I made the decision and it was part of white flight.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Regardless of words, you made the right decision. Not all blacks are violent, we all know that. But just look at where the most dangerous neighborhoods are. What are the most dangerous schools. When you collect that data, you will see one common denominator. Facts are not racist, ignoring them might be though 🙂

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Is that part of the reason you suffer from White Guilt?

      • I don’t think it’s white guilt at all, JAC. I think it’s being honest. I did make the right decision for my sons, but that doesn’t change the net effect for society (i.e., white flight leads to worse conditions for those left behind, black, white, etc.) … that’s not guilt.

  28. gmanfortruth says:

    A good look at how things have changed over the years.

    Hello, I’m Wayne Allyn Root for Personal Liberty. My father, David Root, was a blue-collar butcher. But he was wise beyond his economic status in life. His wisdom of 40 years ago is still timely and points to the reasons for our economic crisis and decline today. An incident from a few days ago sums up everything wrong with the U.S. economy under Barack Obama.

    Last Tuesday (April 2), voters across America went to the polls for local elections. My wife, Debra, was one of those voters. She drove to the polling place in her Cadillac Escalade — a big car that is necessary to drive our brood of four home-schooled kids (and often their friends) to lessons, hobbies and sports, as well as for lugging groceries and supplies for a family of six.

    As Debra got out of the car, another pulled up and parked next to her, a small car. The driver got out, looked at her and, in an angry, mean-spirited, bitter way, commented: “What a big, expensive car. You must be here to vote Republican.” Sneering, he turned his back and walked away.

    This little comment sums up everything wrong with America and the U.S. economy under Obama. This President has damaged the American dream, perhaps beyond repair. This President has created a bitterly divided society, a Nation filled with anger, hate, rage, jealousy and envy.

    That man at the polling place never asked how hard my wife and I have worked for the past 22 years of marriage to afford that big car. He didn’t ask how many hours I’ve put in. He didn’t ask how much money I’ve risked to build my businesses (the answer is my entire life savings — again and again), how many jobs I’ve created or how many lives my success and wealth have enriched. It never occurred to him that the blue-collar autoworkers at Cadillac are mighty glad there are still Americans with the money to buy Escalades.

    Forty years ago, my butcher father taught me lessons about wealth that led to my extraordinary success in this great country. He said: “Son, I’d love to hate rich people. But no one poor has ever given me a job.” Wiser words were never spoken.

    Not only had a rich man given my dad his first job, but a rich man had invested the money for my dad to open his own butcher store. And it was rich customers who walked in the store to buy all his high-quality meat. It was rich customers who supported our family and paid our bills. It was all those rich customers who enabled my father to buy a home. And, he pointed out, it was those same rich customers who would someday write a letter of recommendation when his son applied for acceptance at Columbia University.

    My dad was right about all of it. We lived the American dream. My dad went from minimum wage butcher to butcher store owner. I graduated valedictorian of my class, got those letters of recommendation from rich customers of my dad’s and graduated from Columbia University, class of ’83 (alongside my classmate, Obama).

    As a kid holding my dad’s hand when an expensive car drove by, he made a point to say: “Son, that will be you someday.” Every step of the way my butcher father taught me that people earn their wealth, deserve their success. He told me to be inspired by seeing wealthy people, their big homes and their big cars. To study them, model them and out-work them. And, if I did all that, then one day I could become one of them — in America, the greatest country in the world. He was right.

    Today, that same blue-collar father says to his son: “Look at that expensive car. Why does he deserve that? Who did he take advantage of to get it? I’ll bet he’s a greedy Republican not paying his ‘fair share.’”

    That change in attitude explains why the U.S. economy is in decline and why the jobs numbers continue to unravel. It explains why 90 million working-age Americans are out of the workforce. It explains why things are getting worse, not better. Capitalism is what made America great. You can only create more jobs by creating more opportunity, by supporting entrepreneurship, by creating more rich people — not by tearing them down, overwhelming them with taxes and regulations or asking government to redistribute their money. Obama’s philosophy is a massive failure and a great, big jobs killer. The facts are in.

    Thank you, Dad, for your wisdom.

    I’m Wayne Allyn Root for See you next week right back here. God bless capitalism, and God bless America.

  29. gmanfortruth says:

    I posted this before, but a reminder of how taxes are out of control.

  30. Wow, Please tell me this is a joke. I’m supposed to write a check to pay my taxes knowing it is going to be wasted for this type of crap. This is why the sequester is a good thing-this is why forcing the government to make cuts is important-the government needs to be forced to confront this insanity and waste and not just ignore it.

    Sequester: WH Spends $704,198 on Gardening At NATO Ambassador’s Home

    by William Bigelow 11 Apr 2013, 11:24 AM PDT 11 post a comment View Discussion
    Did you know that the Obama Administration considers tulips, violas, and begonias essential to our national security? The State Department has plans to spend more than $700,000 for gardening at a U.S. Ambassador’s residence in Belgium.

    Truman Hall, located in Brussels, Belgium, serves as the residence of the Ambassador to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

    Before sequestration was implemented, Secretary of State John Kerry stated it could “seriously impair our ability to execute our vital missions of national security, diplomacy and development… these cuts would severely impair our efforts to enhance the security of U.S. government facilities overseas and ensure the safety of the thousands of U.S. diplomats serving the American people abroad.”

    But now that the cuts have taken effect, the State Department can spend $704,198.30 on gardening? What kind of security measures will such a sum pay for?

    Try grass cutting, edging, trimming, weeding, and the planting of 960 violas, tulips, and begonias.

    Americans can rest easy: our national security will soon be enhanced by gardening services in other U.S. embassies as well, including Jakarta, Indonesia; Santiago, Chile; Maseru, Lesotho; and Bangkok, Thailand. Work at the Jakarta embassy in particular comes at a discount, costing at maximum of $500,000.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      I have NO, NONE, ZERO knowledge of the particular expenditures.

      BUT………….. you know me………….. I want to offer one thing for consideration.

      The “GARDENING” budget may include money for something “OTHER THAN” gardening.

      Hint, hint, hint………….

      • I should have thought of that but my mind simply doesn’t naturally jump to I’m being lied to.

  31. Just A Citizen says:


    Did you see the Masters today? Trevor Immelman (sp?) shot SEVEN birdies. But finished only 4 under.

  32. Just A Citizen says:

    This should cause a small stir in our lefty’s hearts. Hee hee hee hee.

  33. gmanfortruth says:

    With a break in the rain, I decided to see if I couldn’t fill our last Red Tag (crop damage tag for deer) . So, up in my treehouse out in the back field, I watched as 3 came out some 300 yards away. With a 15 mph crosswind, that was just not a good shot. Shortly after, 8 more ran out and stopped even farther away, no dice there. About 15 minutes later 4 more came out a little closer, stopped moving about 200 yards away. The winds took a break and the 7mm magnum made a perfect heart shot. Red tag filled! 🙂

    Next adventure is Spring Gobbler, time permitting. I do like my country living 🙂

  34. Oh my God!!!!

    Gosnell abortion-clinic worker: I assisted with abortions while in high school
    posted at 9:21 pm on April 11, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

    This story just keeps getting more and more revolting.

    Like a lot of high school sophomores, 15-year-old Ashley Baldwin found a job.

    Baldwin, however, wasn’t working retail or fast-food. She was doing ultrasounds, administering intravenous medicine and, ultimately, assisting in abortions performed by West Philadelphia doctor Kermit Gosnell.

    Baldwin, now 22, and the mother of a two-year-old, today told a Philadelphia jury hearing Gosnell’s murder trial of her unusual hands-on medical apprenticeship.

    She also told of seeing at least five aborted babies moving, breathing and, in one case, “screeching,” after procedures at Gosnells’ Women’s Medical Society clinic at 3801 Lancaster Ave.

    “They looked just like regular babies,” Baldwin said to Assistant District Attorney Joanne Pescatore.

    Baldwin said one baby she saw was so big that Gosnell joked that “this baby is going to walk me home.”

    Even more unsettling, Baldwin first got the job through her mother, who’d already been working at Gosnell’s House of Horrors for five years. I have no words.

    And yet, media mentions of the ongoing trial have been conspicuously few and far between. Could it be that the otherwise highly sensational story sheds just a little too much inconveniently negative light on a preferred narrative of theirs? Krauthammer calls it out:

    The media is largely and determinedly looking away, but the House of Representatives did take the floor time to recognize what’s been happening on Thursday afternoon. Kathryn Jean Lopez has some highlights at NRO, and you can watch more video here.

%d bloggers like this: