Posts Tagged ‘america’

My friend Jim brings up an excellent point about the redistribution of wealth and communism in his reply to my post about Flat Tax being communism. First, I’ll cover his question of why governments levy taxes. Then I’ll get back onto the topic of the flat tax and communism.

Jim is suggesting that income tax is communism but property tax is possibly justifiable if the purpose of government is the protect and to serve. There are a few problems with this, the most important being that the federal government should have absolutely nothing to do with property taxes. Second, the majority of Americans (and this hold true for most of the world) don’t own real property. Now, perhaps Jim is saying that you should pay taxes on all property you own so that you are paying your fair burden of the police and fire services in your area. Again, does this then mean that people who do not own a house are not deserving of police protection? They may be productive members of society that generate income, purchase cars, gasoline, clothing, rent an apartment from a property owner. They too are deserving of protection under the law.

Now, let’s get back to the purpose of government. There are several levels of government, but the purpose of all governments (at least in America) is the protection of life, liberty, and property. Jim is probably thinking to himself that I just proved his point about the property tax. However, life and liberty still come before property. The protection of these three equalities of all Americans takes place in several different ways via several different government agencies: Military, Police, Fire Departments, Department of Homeland Security, Commerce Department, Transportation Authority, FDA, EPA, FBI, CIA, etc.

All American’s are deserving of the services of all of the above, and all Americans should pay into those services. Now, there may be programs that an individual doesn’t support, but I’m not going to tackle that topic in this blog. Instead, I’m going to ask the next logical questions: Who stands to lose the most if our country in invaded, attacked, or bombed? Who stands to lose the most if there is a fire, earthquake, or other natural disaster? Who stands to lose the most if there is a severe disruption in the availability of natural resources, energy, or foreign services and labor? Not the guy making minimum wage, and not the guy paying 15% taxes (unless you implement a flat tax – communism).

The people who stand to lose the most in any of the above events are the business owners, investors, and wealthy Americans who utilize a great deal more of the protective and political power of or governments. Those who make more money stand to lose more money if something disastrous happens in this country. Therefore, they should pay a greater portion of the taxes. Some (like Jim) might say that wreaks of communism as it is a clear redistribution of wealth. Well, while there are certain programs that do redistribute wealth, most of them do not. Also, one need only look at history to know that a growing and increasingly upset lower-class is the demise of any ruling party.

Take any of the above departments and you will find a disproportionate amount of services being provided to those with greater wealth and income. Sure, there is some money redistributed to lower-income citizens, but again… History.

So this brings us back to the flat tax, which is ultimately the greatest form and supporter of capitalism. Yes, you read that right. A progressive taxation system is capitalism at its finest. How many of our Founding Fathers were in what we’d call the lower class? Was Washington? I think not. Jefferson? HA! Hamilton? Perhaps the closest. Franklin? You’ve got to be kidding me!

How many patent, copyright, and trademark lawsuits are there for the little guy? Barely any, but the giants are in the courtroom all the time. The wealthy utilize our legal system far more than the poor. The law, our government is supported and swayed by the wealthy far more than the the poor. Our governments have been created for the protection of all, but those who are wealthy have far more at stake and are easily responsible for a greater tax burden. In fact, it would be foolish to think otherwise because it would put at risk so much of what business owners and investors have works so hard to gain.

Advertisements

I can’t believe that only 23% of the people polled in a CNN poll thought Vice President Dick(head) Cheney is the worst VP in the history of America. Either these people have a strong recollection of Aaron Burr and Spiro Agnew, or they haven’t paid much attention to distortion of our constitution by the worst Vice President in history. Certainly, Agnew was a swindler, but he has nothing on Cheney. Dick easily ranks up there with Burr.

I would be interested in knowing who these people really think is the worst VP ever.

My favorite quote from Dick:

“I’m very comfortable with where we are and what we achieved substantively. And frankly, I would not want to be one of those guys who spends all his time reading the polls. I think people like that shouldn’t serve in these jobs.”

Of course he feels very comfortable. After having pulled off the largest raping of the American public, I’m sure he feels as comfortable as OJ Simpson with a glove that doesn’t fit on his hand.

Here’s an idea for the government bailout program that the vast majority of Americans don’t support. Give us an opt out clause on our taxes for the next 10 years.

Now, I’m not talking about opting out of our taxes. Those of us who don’t support the bailout will still have to pay our taxes as usual. However, we can opt out of our tax dollars being used to fund this ridiculous scam.

If you limit the government’s availability of funds, they can’t be as spendthrift as they have been. If they want to come up with $700 billion to spend on some useless bailout, they will need to get it from some other source than the American taxpayer.

Years ago, this would not have been possible. However, with technology today, this is entirely possible. In fact, we could give taxpayers the ability to opt out of any irresponsible government spending. It would really make it simple for the government to determine how much they can waste on pointless bailouts like the automobile industry bailout. If 60% of Americans don’t support the automobile bailout then they will only have access to 40% of the taxpayer funds.

This would make budgeting for the government much easier! Taxpayers don’t support something, Congress can’t just go spend the money whenever and wherever they want. I suspect that we could balance the budget within 4-5 years and keep it balanced indefinitely with a bailout opt out clause. In fact, I suspect the government would end up with considerable surpluses as government waste would now have a true checks and balance system in place. The total tax dollars collected would be the same, but the ability for Congress to spend would drop considerably.

Now, some might argue that this would create serious problems with because the funding for the bailout is something that is “necessary” to avoid a greater economic downturn or because it is something the public doesn’t understand the importance of. I have two words December 2007.

I’m honestly wondering what the hell is going on with our politicians! Perhaps we citizens of America are not sending enough letters and emails. Or maybe we think communism is a good thing. Since when did the federal government buying equity stakes into troubled industries become OK?

Sure, we’ll save a few thousand jobs in the immediate future and cripple the entire country for decades to come. I’m not going to be one of those people who talk about how “The End is Near“, but this communism stuff is really starting to boil my red-blooded American capitalist… well, blood. And if I hear one more person talk about this being socialism, I’ll exercise my Second Amendment rights on you!

Socialism and Communism are not the same thing. In fact, what our Congress and White House are practicing is the opposite of what most socialist believe. Most socialists would say things like, “Damn those billionaire running their banks, squeezing us little folks out of our money. We need a government handout. Where’s my bailout?” That’s not what Pelosi and company are saying.

They are saying, “Those poor defenseless billionaires running their banks and automobile companies are loosing so much money because those evil consumers are not consuming enough to keep them rolling along the way we want the world to work. Those poor businesses need a handout at the expense of the taxpayer.”

Meanwhile, the capitalist will say, “What a bunch of idiots! They pissed away our money and they want us to bail them out despite their antiquated technology and crappy service! We are compassionate, and will give you another chance. Here’s a tax break to go update your crap engines that haven’t improved our dependence on fossil fuels despite the fact we knew it was a problem 30+ years ago. And here’s a tax break for you idiot banks who keep your call centers in the United States instead of outsourcing it to India where we end up with crap service and no answers to any of our problems. If you ef up again, go lobby the communists Pelosi and George W. Bush. Otherwise, invest in a cardboard box.”

There’s a lot of crap that Biden has been getting for his comment about terrorists testing America if Obama is elected. Was he referring to the Cuban Missile Crisis? Or was he referring to the attacks of September 11?

Let’s put things in perspective here, my friends (as John McCain would say). Bush, a politician with next to zero experience, gets elected and America is attacked. Were they planning the attacks before Bush was elected? Hell if I know. Would they have attacked if Gore was in office? Who knows.

Having a noob President who also happens to be a cowboy in office certainly would give the terrorists an additional incentive to attack us. It has been well documented that the terrorists are interested in bankrupting America. This is precisely the direction that Cowboy Bush and Congress have been taking us.

However, I’m willing to bet that a McCain presidency is far more likely to result in a terrorist attack on America than an Obama presidency. Why? Because John McCain has shown that he is willing to fight a “war on terror” by invading another country that had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks of September 11. McCain is willing to turn America into a communist country (ala voting for the communist bailout of failing banks in America) and send our soldiers into harms way with misguided and fabricated military intelligence.

Just think about it for a minute. Where was his 30 years of experience when he was sounding the war on Iraq trumpet? Where was all his wisdom when he cast his votes in Congress that put us into the situation we are in now? A lot of good that experience did for us over the last 8 years, right?

I love America! I’ll joke from time-to-time about how California is our own country, but I’m not secretly promoting an independent California. As much as I think politicians like Dick Cheney has tarnished the American dream for decades to come, I still love our country.

When we hear about nut jobs in Texas and Montana who are trying to secede from America, we usually chalk it up as a bunch of crazies in the middle of the desert. Then you have Sarah Palin, John McCain’s VP running mate, who happens to be running around with the Alaskan Independence Party. No, that’s not the Independent Party in Alaska. That is Alaskans who want to secede from the United States of America.

For someone who touts her patriotism not by the taxes she pays, I’m really looking hard for how the hell she is patriotic.

If someone wants out of America so bad, why are they running on a presidential ticket? How about she just gets the hell out of America. Russia is right in her backyard. She could just swim there and take the whole Alaskan Independence Party with her.

Today gives me yet another day to gloat about the idiotic college professor I had years ago at Strayer University (yes, avoid this college. It is a waste of time and money). The CEO of Dow Chemical borrowed a page straight out of my economic philosophy and is proving that energy based inflation is a reality, not some idea that deserves a B on my term paper. Dow is going to raise their prices immediately by up to 20%

If you’re asking “Who the hell is Dow? Isn’t that a stock exchange?” Check the back of half the cleaning supplies you have in your house and ask just about every company in America where they receive a good portion of their supplies from! They don’t just make scrubbing bubbles America!

Dow is just the start too. Energy based inflation starts here. Energy prices increase, putting pressure on businesses to either cut profits or slow down. Traditional economist, aka most college professors, will tell you that energy prices will come back down and everyone will be happy. However, in the real world this doesn’t and didn’t happen over the last 10 years. The result is that every company in America (except big energy, and miraculously Walmart) is being squeezed to the brink of no ability to make a profit or even be productive at any level.

There is a solution. It isn’t cheap, but it wouldn’t cost any more than the failed tax rebate of 2008. This solution would provide a long-term solution to the energy crisis in America and heavily stimulate the US economy while building the infrastructure needed.

Where have all those “tax rebates” gone? Hats off to anyone who spends it on anything other than energy.

I’ll keep it really brief:

  1. Bring more attention to the “gas tax holiday”
  2. Point out how both of your opponents support it even though it would just put more money into the already fat pockets of oil companies
  3. Remind people that both Clinton and McCain support this ridiculous economic gimmick, and ask the public to decide who we think Clinton and McCain are really supporting
  4. Ask America if we want more of the same flat economy over the last 8 years with failed fiscal policy after failed fiscal policy
  5. Win handedly, so you are officially running against John McCain and then keep bringing up the fact that McCain supported this very, VERY bad economic gimmick

Free as a courtesy to democracy in America!

Today, the Bush Administration announced their new plan to help protect the environment. Since all three Presidential candidates are addressing growing environmental concerns, George W. Bush made the following announcement:

The Democratical candidates all have their environmentalistic policies that they believe are best for America and our planet. Unfortunately, these plans are highly flawed and don’t address the American workforce. This is why my administration is taking critical actions to exemplify my leadership on the the environment.

Effective immediately, we are going to slow down the economy considerably. See, with fewer people with jobs or employment situations, there will be a reductionation of driving, requiring fewer fossil fuel consumptions. This will also reduce the demand other goods and services that are bad for the environment, like flying airplanes.

Speaking of which. I’m going to go on vacation. But I won’t be traveling for this vacation. I’ll still be sitting in the White House, reading papers and staring at the wall.

When asked how this policy change was any different than his existing policy, Bush deferred to his Press Secretary who had no comment.

What do the Clintons and the Bushes have in common?

Besides having been the only two families to reside in the White House for the last 20 years, they have an additional quality that is unfolding in front of our eyes.

George W. Bush lost the 2000 popular vote, and it has been argued that he even lost the electoral vote if recounts in Florida were taken into account. There are thousands of articles, blogs, etc. about how the Bush family stole the election of 2000. Heck! There was even a movie about it.

It is amazing how history is prone to repeat itself when unchecked power is at play.

With Hillary Clinton standing on the verge of destroying our American political system, we should all wonder if Michael Moore with produce Fahrenheit 2008.