Emperor Rants and Observations - Latest Comments

Re: The US Debt

Mark C — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 09:34:32 -0000

Love this guy, and his writing. He is so correct. I am going to follow him, learn some stuff from him.

Re: Why cutting government spending now would be disastrous.

Emperor_Bob — Sun, 17 Apr 2011 20:41:17 -0000

Steve, thanks for the response.

First let me point to the operative word "now", I didn't say never cut
spending. Also we need to have the conversation about what needs to be
cut.

Second, there was no nationwide referendum. In fact since the election
the popularity of Obama and Health Care Reform have swung more in
favor than against. The radical right won a few races due to the
massive amounts of money poured into campaigns by Koch Industries,
Chamber of Commerce, News Corp, Wall Street and other Right Wing
elitists. Also aided by massive disinformation campaigns from Fox News
and right wing radio pundits. The results in 2010 aren't dissimilar to
results of many mid-term elections. The results will be significantly
different in 2012 with a rout of right wing extremists.

I explained exactly why I think cutting spending NOW would be
disastrous. No one on the right can rationally explain how cutting
spending will improve the economy or create jobs. In fact they can't
demonstrate how cutting spending or taxes will make anything better.
Federal taxes are the lowest since 1950, lower than the Reagan years.
We've been cutting taxes for the past decade, even Obama has cut
taxes, all have failed to improve the economy. The only thing they did
was make the rich richer. It's unconscionable that GE and Exxon paid
zero federal taxes. Do you deny that Government spending cuts would
cause, in the private and public sector, more unemployed,
foreclosures, bankruptcies, and small business closures?

"Trickle Down" is a failure. "De-regulation" has been a disaster in
the banking and finance sector. Lack of enforcement in the coal and
oil industries have ended up environmental catastrophes and deaths.
Anyone paying attention and not listening to the right wing talking
heads know that those old canards of right wing philosophy only serve
the purposes of the ruling class. The decline of Unions corresponds
directly to the decline in earnings of the middle class (graph)
http://ow.ly/i/atMM

If there was a serious commitment to cutting spending the place to
start would be ending all corporate welfare, subsidies, and credits.
We'd slash the defense budget by bringing all our troops home, closing
all overseas bases.

I invite you to look at The People's Budget http://bit.ly/hF9V8l and
my own modest contribution of ideas to address our fiscal challenges.
"Nobody asked me, but here’s my solutions". http://bit.ly/g6AJ1I

I reject and resent the implication that those of us that disagree
with the right don't believe in our founding documents. I encourage
you to read "The United States of Inequality" http://slate.me/bV0dMw
and "Whatever Happened to Truth in Advertising? The Continued False
Campaign Against the Constitution by the Tea Party and Its Allies"
http://bit.ly/gmqD0l

Again, thanks for response. I appreciate the conversation.

Re: Why cutting government spending now would be disastrous.

Steve Beren — Sun, 17 Apr 2011 13:11:46 -0000

Bob, thanks for your candor and sincerity in admitting you oppose spending cuts. Despite dishonest rhetoric to the contrary, President Obama and the congressional Democrats agree with you.

The 2010 elections ("shellacking") showed that the American people want to reduce the cost of government, eliminate the annual federal budget deficit, and begin paying off the national debt. The voters' will was clearly expressed - repeal Obamacare, sharply cut federal spending, lower taxes, fiscal responsibility, free market solutions, limited government. Victorious candidates were those who opposed Obamacare and advocated spending cuts and tax reform; "shellacked" candidates were those who bitterly clung to Obamacare and who bitterly clung to higher taxes and massive growth of government.

Even with a majority in both the House and Senate, and with a Democratic president, the Democrats deliberately avoided passing a 2011 budget during 2010. They knew they were already headed for a crushing defeat primarily due to the issue of Obamacare, and they were afraid that passing a typical Democratic budget would make the shellacking even worse. So Obama, Pelosi, and Reid punted.

Obama and Reid agree with you, Bob, in their opposition to spending cuts. As you openly and honestly admit, you (despite the expressed will of the American voters) believe "cutting spending now would be disastrous." Obama and Reid agree with you, but the American people believe otherwise. Nevertheless, you are to be commended for your courage in favoring continued growth of government in the face of the desire of the citizens to reduce the cost of government.

Obama and the progressives pretend to be for spending cuts, but like you they favor spending increases. They've racked up record deficits and a record national debt, and they want to continue along that path. Likewise, in order to feed the growth of government, Obama and the congressional Democrats want to increase taxes (again, despite dishonest campaign rhetoric to the contrary - remember "I'll cut taxes for 95% of the people"?).

More spending, higher taxes, continued record deficits, unsustainable debt - that's the program of Obama and the Democratic Party. I can see November 2012 (Shellacking 2.0) from my house.

But go ahead, Bob, and keep arguing along those lines. The American people favor fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets; that's how they voted in 2010, and that's how they'll vote in 2012. Why should it be surprising that in America, birthplace of liberty, the people really believe in the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, freedom, individual responsibility, and capitalism? Obama, Reid, and other opponents of spending cuts ignore the voters at their own risk.

Re: About The Emperor

RockyMissouri — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 19:12:46 -0000

Two friends of mine were in North Dakota, I think ..a few years ago and he picked up a little piece of buffalo poop....2 forest service guys drove
up...guns drawn, saying 'place the resources on the ground!'....their GUNS were DRAWN!.....I guarantee that he brought back a fabulous story about his near getaway from the law with buff poop... but the law got the drop on him, and all he got to bring back was a GREAT story!

Re: About The Emperor

RockyMissouri — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 18:58:34 -0000

I think ACORN was a wonderful organization that helped poor people... That's probably not what you'd like to hear about.... Perhaps you'd prefer to believe it was something evil - which it was not. I think you are a person who might watch Fox News, and if so, I am sorry. I think it's probably difficult for you to call Obama our president...I am proud of him. How can you speak so badly of our president, and not about Rush Limbaugh..or Glenn Beck..or the Chamber of Commerce, for sending jobs out of the country??? Or the dictators that we propped up for many years.....and their poor citizens, terrorized, and having to live under dictators....while we pay a visit...meanwhile, we the people have lost our voice..

Re: Radical campaign finance and election reform

Emperor_Bob — Tue, 04 Jan 2011 17:59:11 -0000

Election & campaign reform is like tax reform. Everyone want's to reform other peoples taxes, without giving up any of their benefits in the process. Anyone that benefits from the current power structure, in any way, will fight tooth and nail to maintain the status quo.

Re: Radical campaign finance and election reform

Dmpolis — Tue, 04 Jan 2011 10:09:18 -0000

I feel like I came out of the dark. I have been trying to get people to understand election reform is key. It isdifficult to understand how others do not see this is what needs to be done

Re: Impeach Palin NOW!

Best Woodworking Plans — Sat, 25 Dec 2010 03:05:03 -0000

As if giving away 500 Million dollars to a foreign company for doing what Denali Pipeline is doing at their own cost wasn’t bad enough.

Re: Nobody asked me, but here’s my solutions.

Emperor_Bob — Sat, 04 Dec 2010 01:04:47 -0000

Thanks for the well thought out response. I appreciate you taking the time to do so.

Regardless of the original source or context of the quote, I believe the premise of money being the root of all is still valid. That doesn't mean to say that money itself is evil, or that money can't also be a source of good.

The problems of fraud, abuse, waste and corruption always has been and always will be part and parcel of government at all levels. You find it in the the smallest rural communities and at the highest reaches of government. Smaller government is no guaranteed solution to criminal behavior and greed. In my opinion, a more effective way to approach those problems is by Radical campaign finance and election reform

Response by topic.

1. Social Security

You're obviously philosophically opposed to the very idea of Social Security. An American value that shall not be abandoned as I stated above is "we take care of our elderly, disabled...". Eliminating or cutting Social Security is simply not an option to be considered. We can't solve the country's financial problems on the backs of the most vulnerable.

According to the most recent actuary report from Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees

"Conclusion:

The ACA makes significant progress toward making Medicare financially viable. But while it is projected that the Medicare HI Trust Fund is adequately financed until 2029, and the Social Security OASI and DI Trust Funds are adequately financed until 2040 and 2018, respectively, the significant longer term financial imbalances of the programs still need to be addressed. The sooner action is taken to address the long-run financial imbalances, the more reform options will be available, and the more time there will be to phase in changes so that those affected will have adequate time to prepare."

So, collapse of the system is neither imminent nor unavoidable. By eliminating the cap, expanding the economy and the number of people paying into the system, the long term solvency of the programs will be assured. Immigration is the alternative to families having fewer children.

2. Health Care.

Our health care system works for the rich and those fortunate enough to have health insurance. The number of companies providing health insurance is dwindling. The cost of health insurance is skyrocketing as is the cost of health care itself. The lack of access to preventative health care, early detection and treatment is costing us billions of dollars. Doing nothing about our health care system is not a solution.

U.S. Health Care Costs: Background Brief - KaiserEDU.org, Health Policy Education from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

"Option" is the key. It's still insurance you pay for. If you want to keep your current insurance there is nothing preventing you from doing so.

3. Immigration

A system to allow immigrants to enter the country for the purpose of working would be fairly easy to implement. Take their picture, finger prints and DNA. Run a background check. Once cleared they would be issued a card permitting them entry and the ability to work legally in the US.

Undocumented workers do pay taxes. Most local, county, state taxes are sales and property taxes. Undocumented workers are not excluded from those. Many pay up at tax time including Social Security, Medicare and Unemployment that they aren't qualified to receive.

Sales taxes (VAT) are regressive by nature and hurt the working poor the most. Adding additional point of sale taxes on top of existing local sales taxes would only hurt sales.

4. Employer accountability.

I think when tied to making it easier for immigrants to register to work legally, most people would agree with this. I think there would be more resistance from the business community because they hate any government intrusion into their businesses, and certainly don't want to have to treat all their workers equally.

5. Corporate subsidies.

Another point that will be a tough sale to the business community. They are all for making individuals take the blunt of the blow for economic downturns, but they fight every inch to preserve their special perks.

6. Hemp is not Marijuana. You can't get stoned smoking it.

7,8,9 Marijuana

I'm sorry, but you're flat wrong on all counts about Marijuana. It's far less damaging than alcohol. Has proven medical uses. Users are usually non-violent. Societal cost of Marijuana use is much lower than alcohol or tobacco. Marijuana smuggling is the number one reason for violence amongst the Mexican drug cartels. We are spending billions of dollars enforcing, prosecuting, and incarcerating people for possession of a plant. Not only would legalization save billions, it would produce billions in tax revenues at every level of government. These are the same reasons that prohibition was ended. Government needed a new source of revenue during the depression.

For someone who objects so much about the interference of government in peoples lives, your objection to Marijuana legalization seems out of character and inconsistent.

10. Child Support.

Usually the parent with physical custody of a child gets the tax exemption for taxes purposes unless. In an ideal world there would be no need for this kind of thing. I don't particularly like using the tax code to modify behavior, but in this case I think we need a carrot along with the stick.

11. Taxes.

I'm all for a flat tax, from first dollar to last dollar regardless of source. We'll never get that past the millionaires or corporations that love all the ways available to them to lower or even eliminate paying any federal income taxes.

Again, I really appreciate your response and look forward to continuing the discussion.

Re: Nobody asked me, but here’s my solutions.

Lmack49 — Fri, 03 Dec 2010 11:56:49 -0000

First, the quote "money is the root of all evil" is not correctly stated. It was not money, but "the love of money that is the root of all evil" I Tim. 6:10. Changing the emphasis from "money" to the "love of money" changes the whole understanding of the discussion. It is not those who possess money that posses evil, but those who love and pursue money that posses evil. Having money is not necessary to be guilty of this vice but simply having an unnatural desire for money. Such a desire for the wealth of others involves envy and lust and the same religious system that produced the quote above is critical of such inordinate desire.

Government solutions require that humans be put in charge of making decisions that affect large numbers of people. The rub comes when large sums of money are involved corruption enters. Evil and corruption can't be removed from the process it makes no difference which party is in office. Since the Reagan Administration, it has been proved that Presidents and high government officials are relative immune to criminal investigation and prosecution. Reagan, Clinton, and GW Bush and now Obama all have issues that some wanted them held accountable for, and it will not happen. Presidents, cabinet members, presidential staff, and members of congress are relative immune to prosecution, but not entirely (The further removed from the elected official, the less the immunity). These are the last people we want to be putting in charge of making decisions for that we can make for ourselves.

Comments on your list are as follows:
1. Socialist Security often mispronounced in the media as Sos-Security to remove any connection to true origins of the program should be renamed Socialist Insecurity. It was a doomed program from the beginning. The agenda of the Humanist to limit population growth over the past 80 years has changed our society to the point that we are not having children and the same rate as prior to 1960. Baby Bloomers are not having the large families of previous generations. Now our aging population tends to outnumber the producers. Sure we can increase the take using some revised taxing scheme, but it will bankrupt the younger generation to service the program. The Social Security train wreck coming is not going to end well for anyone. The longer we wait to dismantle the program, the worse the wreck will be. So many of us have paid into the program and would like to get at least our investment back. Not going to happen. Funny thing, if I had invested the same amount of money into a bank at even 6% interest, I would now be a multi-millionaire and the money would be mine. As it is raising the retirement age is being discussed and cost of living raises have been canceled by this and previous administrations, all to keep my investment to try to make the program solvent. I and my heirs will not see all my investment and what ever is left at my death will be kept by the government. The entire program should be dismantled.
2. Health care should remain in the hands of the people. Our system has worked fine for 100's of years. Socialized medicine has failed every time it has been tried. Do we think we as Americans can do it better than the Germans, the Brits, or the Canadians? NO we do worse with government programs than any of these. The administration is already discussing the implementation of death panels for the elderly and unproductive to save on health care cost. Tort reform, a level playing field, and deregulation of the health care industry will do the job. We already see the best health care moving to Eastern Europe where medical practice is free of government mandates and interference. Get ready for years of waiting just to get "emergency surgery" as it now is in Canada and England.
3. On immigration and temporary workers we agree. Why can't a program be put into place to process foreign workers and make them legal when entering the country? The undocumented workers move under the radar and work without paying income tax, social security tax, etc and unfairly compete with our own people who must pay the taxes. Moving away from the income tax and using a VAT tax would help the situation, but would not entirely solve the problem. These undocumented workers enter the country using schools, roads, hospitals, etc straining the system but nothing is collected from them to cover the cost. The current arrangement is not fair to the existing legal residents who have no choice but to pay for these items via taxation hence the anger at illegal aliens and undocumented workers. Moving tax collection away from the federal government and allowing local and state governments to devise funding methods from within would also tend to solve the problem.
4. Agree in total, but you will run afoul of the bleeding hearts who totally oppose this arrangement.
5. Right on!!!
6. Naaah! No on the Mari-gee-wanna! It damages brains . . . and places people on welfare rolls. Do away with welfare and socialized medicine and I might be with you.
7. See 6.
8. See 6.
9. See 6.
10. Wow! Tax breaks tend to help society! Makes one wonder why 11 is necessary at all. I do not like the idea of "targeted tax breaks" used extensively in the current income tax system. The tax system should neither encourage nor discourage child production. See government corruption above. Allowing elected officials to make this kind of decision will always result in decisions being made to benefit the elected official party notwithstanding.
11. See the last sentence above. The entire tax system needs to be revised to remove the burden of tax collection and payment from the individual. A uniform across the board "flat" income tax or a federal "VAT" would be acceptable. Tax would be collected on all wages or transactions by the employer or vendor who would be totally responsible for payment as is now the case with state run "VAT" programs. Think of the resources saved if all individuals could be removed from paying any federal taxes directly. The program would work to the extent that the more you work, the more you pay or the more you spend the more you pay. Individuals would not even have to keep records. I would love it! All record keeping would be required by employers or merchants who already have to keep similar records. It would not increase the burden on business. China does not even collect tax on "Capital Gains" and their investment program is booming. We could learn from them.

It was amazing on how many things we agree, Mari-gee-wanna notwithstanding. I am afraid that too many people believe that the government can solve all our problems. Government is made up of people. The more people the more the corruption. Another wise saying was "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Government solutions should be the last to be considered for any problem.

Re: Why cutting government spending now would be disastrous.

Emperor_Bob — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 21:31:17 -0000

Nobody is forced to "ONLY" live on what the Government what it thinks they deserve. Where do you get that idea from?

Again with the 23%. If they know they aren't going to have to pay taxes at the end of the year they can raise their exemptions on their W-9 so that they get the minimum withheld. I've never said paying income taxes helps pay the bills. You're the one that keeps bringing it up as if it has something to do the conversation. How does raising the price of everything 23% make it easier to pay your bills?

So you're suggesting that we get rid of Social Security, Medicare and Unemployment Insurance? Go back to the days before the Great Depression? Have you ever talked to anyone that lived through that era? If you have, and you still think we should get rid of those programs then I just don't know what kind of human being are.

Many people invested while they worked for years to build up savings only to have those savings stolen by banks that were allowed to gamble with other peoples money because of deregulation. Just like 1929 all over again, and now you want to remove the rest of the safety net.

Re: Why cutting government spending now would be disastrous.

Emperor_Bob — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 21:13:00 -0000

You're the one using the poor as an excuse. Nearly half don't pay any federal taxes. Your sales tax would tax all those that don't pay federal income taxes. That's the poor.

Re: Why cutting government spending now would be disastrous.

Emperor_Bob — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 21:11:30 -0000

Which argument are you going to use? Is it that everyone pays 23% or is it because nearly half pay no federal taxes at all? You can't have both.

Businesses are going to have to collect the sales tax and send it the feds right? So they are going to have to account for the sales and remit it to the feds how often? That 23% is gross, it comes off the top, no deductions. If they also have to pay local and state sales taxes, is that 23% on top of the other taxes or excluding them? What about businesses outside of the US? How are you going to collect taxes from them when they sell to Americans via mail order or the Internet? For those that live on the borders why not just go across the border and save themselves 23% off the top? You'll create a whole new class of black market with every good and service imaginable with an automatic 23% advantage over law abiding businesses.

I'm all for simplifying the tax code. 10% on all income, of any kind, from any source. No deductions, no exemptions, no exceptions. Try to get that one past the billionaires.

Re: Why cutting government spending now would be disastrous.

Emperor_Bob — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 21:02:13 -0000

Many of those 47% do work, and pay other taxes just not Federal income tax. Some of them don't pay any federal income taxes because they have deductions like mortgage interest and medical bills that lower their tax obligation.

In general I disagree with your view on three points:

1) People receiving assistance aren't buying new cars or living high on the hog. If you know somebody that is receiving public assistance (not disability, retirement or unemployment) that is living an extravagant lifestyle they are probably committing fraud. The benefit amounts just aren't much more than poverty level. There are also incentives to work while receiving assistance. They can keep medicaid and only lose one dollar in benefits for every two dollars they earn up to the point where they are no longer receiving benefits. These were changes that were made back in the Clinton Administration.

2) We are paying the lowest tax rates since 1950. The only tax rate change that the Democrats are proposing is to allow the Bush tax cuts for the top 2% of earners expire. That only affects the amount over $250,000 for a family who probably have many ways to shelter income from income tax anyway. The median family income for Americans is only $50,000 per year. So we are talking about a slight increase to those that have a net income five times the median income. That top rate would still be lower than it was during the Reagan years.

3) We've been lowering taxes on the rich under the misguided assumption that they would take that money and invest in new businesses, expanding business, hiring more people, paying people more, offering more benefits for 10 years. It hasn't happened. All it did was balloon the deficit and make the rich richer. How much longer are we supposed to support their lavish lifestyles while the middle class disappears, foreclosures rise, small businesses close, bankruptcies rise and more people are turning to government assistance. Local and State governments are also suffering, having to cut critical positions like police, firefighters and teachers because of the economy and less federal assistance. These are all caused by taxes too low on the richest of the rich, not because they're too high on 98% of the families.

Effective tax rate much lower than top statutory rate. http://bit.ly/hMCVNp Corporations in 19 of the member states of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development paid 16.1 percent of their profits in taxes between 2000 and 2005, on average, while corporations in the United States paid 13.4 percent. And we've lowered rates since then.

How Exxon paid zero taxes in 2009 http://bit.ly/hc852k

Re: Why cutting government spending now would be disastrous.

MStreet — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 19:52:43 -0000

How does taking a minimum of 23% from everyone's paychecks help them pay their bills? How does keeping business having to track, record, store, manage, plan and file an income tax every year with the added expenses of hiring tax attorneys, CPAs, etc. and paying 40% corporate rates, 40% self employed rates, 15% self employment tax, + 7.65% of your employees payroll tax + tracking, recording, storing, employees W-2s, etc. & complying with a tax code so complex that even Charles Rangel, who writes the laws and Tim Geitner, who enforces the laws can't seem to follow, help businesses to keep their expenses (costs) low and their product/service prices low and high pay for employees?

Re: Why cutting government spending now would be disastrous.

MStreet — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 19:42:53 -0000

BTW, How much do you think we poor spend on new houses, cars, etc. or new anything for that matter. Ever heard of Goodwill and Salvation Army thrift stores? Under the Fair Tax, we get all our money we worked for, a prebate available to all, a choice not to pay taxes and control over how much we do pay instead of those jokers in Washington who have already proven they aren't good with money. Don't use we poor as an excuse. I don't buy it.

Re: Why cutting government spending now would be disastrous.

MStreet — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 19:38:37 -0000

small correction: last sentence 'trying to take more money through higher taxes from those with money only makes them ...'

Re: Why cutting government spending now would be disastrous.

MStreet — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 19:30:47 -0000

That half is the half that doesn't pay is the very same half used to tax the h-ll out of the rest of the population who DO work and DO pay taxes. If I don't work and you do and I want a new car and I have a tax law that lets me vote myself all the money I want with the willing help of politicians and lobbyists in Washington, guess what kind of rate YOU could be paying while going to work while I drive in my new car. That is how our present system works. No one is worrying about THEIR tax rate as much as they want whoever makes more money to be taxed at higher rates so they don't have to pay, or at least they think. Instead, it shows up in higher prices, lower wages, fewer jobs. Trying to take more from those with more money through an income tax only makes them do what any sane individual does when someone else is trying to take their earned money; hide it, protect it and move it out of danger.

Re: Why cutting government spending now would be disastrous.

Emperor_Bob — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 19:21:06 -0000

As I pointed out below, nearly half of American households pay no federal income taxes, so this isn't about the poor. We've cut taxes for the rich and they haven't created any jobs (in the US).

We aren't living in the same world as our founders lived in or even a century ago. In those days a man and his family could find a plot of land and live off it, farming, ranching, hunting, fishing, gathering. We were primarily an agricultural country. Our infrastructure needs were much simpler. People could just ban together and build a road or bridge with their own effort for common benefit (kind of communism). There were plenty of jobs for those that wanted to work. There were family businesses and farms that were the rule rather than the exception. We had a trade surplus because we were wealthy in land, natural resources and technology that gave us a competitive advantage.

Does that sound to you like the world we are living in today?

Re: Why cutting government spending now would be disastrous.

MStreet — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 19:08:29 -0000

All those who are relying on Social Security, etc. today have spent their entire lives having their income taxed thereby hindering their own ability to provide for themselves and their families and are now forced to live ONLY on what the govt. decides what it thinks they 'deserve.'

You argue that taxing people on sales is bad for them and will hurt them and have yet to explain how taking a minimum of 23% from everyone's paycheck, THUS LEAVING THEM 23% short, helps them pay those same bills. A 'logic' all it's own that I find common among those who think an income tax is the only way to raise revenue.
As it is, those same people are going to work, having 23% taken before they even get a paycheck, then, when they do get their paycheck, it is for less than what they worked for and still have to pay bills. According to your logic, that somehow helps them pay their bills.

Under the Fair Tax, they get 23% more in their paychecks, + a prebate equal to 23% X poverty rate by household, and the choice to buy used items (cars, houses, furniture, stereos, etc.) and not pay any taxes. You offer to have them pay less, still have to go to work and turn over their money to Washington for more than a year and still buy those same items with less money in their pay and, somehow, that's supposed to help? Under Fair Tax, we who are poor have a choice in how much we pay in taxes. Under the income tax, we have no choice. That choice is made by 536 people in Washington and their attending lobbyists over 95% of whom are there thanks to the income tax.

And in your 'taxing more brings less' vein, income taxes tax working, saving and investing. What does it reward? Sitting at home, not working, demanding higher tax rates be paid by those who do work for a living so that more of it can be voted out of the public dole, wasting money, and drawing all the government assistance you can get.

Re: Why cutting government spending now would be disastrous.

MStreet — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 18:49:59 -0000

BTW, since the poor need income to get out of poverty, the middle class needs income to pay bills, the rich need income in order to hire, pay bills, etc., how does taking money from everyone's income help them pay their bills when there are other ways to raise revenue; long tried and proven before 1913 and the enactment of the income tax. Our founders weren't ignorant men and knew that an income tax is the tool of tyrants and never adopted one as a means to raise revenue.

Re: Why cutting government spending now would be disastrous.

Emperor_Bob — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 18:46:37 -0000

@MaxStreet1 Income taxes don't cause "entitlements". Low wages, disability, old age and unemployment are why we need those programs you call "entitlements". Social Security and Unemployment benefits only go to those that pay into the system, and they only receive benefits in direct proportion to what they pay in.

About 47% will pay no federal income taxes for 2009. http://usat.ly/gFhaFt . Eliminating the income tax for those families isn't going to help them. Adding a 23% sales tax will lower their standard of living even more because it will increase the cost of everything. Also, the higher the sales tax, the less of a product is sold. Tobacco taxes are a perfect example. If less of a product is sold, that hurts businesses and cost jobs.

Re: Why cutting government spending now would be disastrous.

MStreet — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 18:12:03 -0000

If we stopped taxing income in the first place, there wouldn't be as much need for 'entitlements.' How does a poor man get out of poverty? Sit around and wait for the government to make him rich? Or work? If he works, he makes income which the INCOME tax takes hindering everyone's 'upward mobility.'

Any income tax takes money from the economy and sends it to Washington where politicians and lobbyists will have their turn deciding who is 'worthy' and who isn't and who 'deserves' keeping the money they earned and who doesn't, according to the politicians and lobbyists. Rather than continue with the same system that has the most benefits for those pols and lobbyists, why not get the govt. out of the business of taxing anyone's income and switch to sales taxes giving every American the choice in the total amount of taxes they pay instead of 536 people in Washington.

All an income tax does is give lobbyists and politicians more power over the amount of taxes everyone else will pay, more absolute control over how much everyone in America makes (or is 'allowed' to make) and, therefore, more control over the financial and economic decisions of every working American than the people who actually work to earn that money.

As it is, more than half of the population pays no taxes/doesn't work and feels entitled to up to 94% of everyone's income because, why worry about it if you're not working and, with the willing help of socialists and the left and their politicians and lobbyists who will make millions anyway. If you're not working, why should you give a d-mn about someone having to work and turn over their money so you can sit on your a$$ all day and do nothing but vote yourself more money.

An income tax is like a starving man trying to eat his own body to survive. His 'successes' only mean he has hindered his own ability to survive and feed himself. An income tax does the economy, workers and employers the same way.

Under the Fair Tax, we can eliminate a bunch of this mess by not giving govt. our money straight from our income meaning they won't have 'money in hand' to treat the rest of us like trained dogs responding to 'vote for us your SAVIOURS, we'll [your choice: give you more money, give you tax break, start a new, expensive entitlement program after raising your taxes so we can then give your tax money back to you...etc.] Instead of playing 'hide the taxes' while lowering taxes here, raising some over there, hiding more 'under the rug', etc. Everyone has ONE rate to keep their mind on and a vested personal interest in keeping that one rate low instead of 'who makes more than I do and who can I screw with taxes.' Everyone will be responsible for their own taxes instead of nonpaying, nonworking assigning the rates they think others should pay.

Government doesn't create jobs. It only takes money from those who do create jobs. Historically, our rates have been as high as 94% and some 'geniuses' think we should return to those levels never stopping to realize those same rates are one of the reasons that US companies starting leaving after the 'fall of communism.' Until then, there was no where to go safely and that is the only reason I see that made companies tolerate those rates for all those years. As long as the danger of those same confiscatory rates returning exists, I don't see US companies bringing their $11 trillion in offshore accounts back to the US to start building, manufacturing and hiring US workers. Anyone who thinks they are going to keep an income tax around, and with some raise the rates, those companies are not likely to come back to the US when the next election may mean more 90+% tax rates.

Re: Legalize Hemp and Marijuana

Growit — Sat, 16 Oct 2010 16:06:53 -0000

EVERYONE needs to break the law, grow it, use it, and the war will be won.

Re: Emperor’s World View

Heike — Sun, 08 Aug 2010 07:47:25 -0000

Hello from Germany,
I agree with a lot of what you say in your post. Very well put indeed. Looking forward to meeting you on Twitter.