I cannot stress enough how important it is at this point to remain vigilant. Stay persistent. Refuse to accept the labels. Refuse to be dismissed. This is a long haul. This fight will not be over in November or even in 2012. This is a fight that is at least a twenty year battle to bring America back to the original values and intent of Its founding fathers.
What we are seeing in the liberal media now is fear. Because of the grass-roots, ground-up movement that is the Tea Party movement, those in power are fearful. That fear is not because of threats of violence because those haven't happened. The fear comes because they know that they are wrong and they know that their control is short lived. The liberal leadership in power today is very close to realizing the change that comes from the voters not from an elite ruling class.
I've watched as former President Clinton loosely equated the tea party movement to the Oklahoma bombing. I watched as liberal pundits tried to use the word "Sedition" and associate it to the likes of Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. I've watched as the the Department of Homeland Security Office declared that Christian conservative military vets should be watched. I've watched as the left has loosely aligned the pilot who flew the plane in the IRS building to these "grass roots" movements. I've watched as Joe the plumber was investigated by a government agency because he spoke in opposition of the President's policies. I've watched as the liberal media interviewed an African-American tea-party attendee, asking if they felt "uncomfortable" at the event. I've read liberal bloggers calling names, and spewing hate.
When the Tea Party was just starting to grab some real media attention during the beginnings of the health care debate, the left called them "Astro-turf." The left dismissed them as fringe and having no real traction.
Now they are labeling and demonizing. Now they are compartmentalizing. These are the tried and true tactics from the left. If they can label the tea party as racist (Klansmen), as violent (Hate group or militia), or radical by any means, they can then begin to drum up support for legislation to control. This has already been proven by the White House's attempt at black-listing Fox News.
The liberal leadership would not exert this much effort if they did not realize the political peril that they find themselves in. Do not be over confident either. This is not a movement that will solve America's problems over the course of this year or next. This movement is generational. The problems we face today are real because of the multi-generational progressive movement. The intensity of today must remain resilient for an unforeseeable amount of time. The tea party movement must be able to absorb these attacks and rebound with even more enthusiasm.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Who Really Pays Taxes
It doesn't really matter which side of the political fight that you're on, the taxes (all taxes) flow down to the little guy. No one can deny that wealthy people pay taxes. The IRS numbers show it. There are many reports that show that the greatest burden of income taxes (not payroll) are borne by the smallest minority of the wealthiest individuals. So you might say, "Yeah! stick it to the evil rich guy!" I'm here to tell you, "WRONG." No matter how you break down the numbers, the only guy who pays all the taxes is the guy who works for a wage and consumes a product or service.
The rich get rich by the manner with which they live and the financial decisions that they make. The rich also have the means to find deductions and shelters. I know that they pay taxes but if they paid so many taxes as a percentage of their income, how are they still wealthy? The rich always bring in more revenue (note I didn't say income) than they expend. More in, less out. How do they do that? There are many ways to invest money tax free. When the tax burden is too much, the rich stop (or slow down) "earning" money. The rich also reduce expenses to live under the investments and other non-taxable revenues reducing the need to "earn" money. This also happens in economic recessions. The key is that although the numbers show that the rich pay taxes, they also have more control over what their respective tax burden will be.
Many say, tax the big companies. Again, I tell you, "WRONG." No company pays taxes. No company will pay for the carbon offsets under a "Cap-n-Trade" program. Companies figure out what their operating expenses are (overhead). Businesses then calculate based on market factors what's the maximum that they can charge for a product and still maximize sales. The maximum amount that can be charged must cover the operating expenses and provide for profit or they go out of business. What does this mean? You pay the tax when you purchase the product or service.
The rich man is also the business owner. Don't you think that he understands what his personal tax burdens are therefore understands how much profit that business must make? He must charge more, produce more, or cut expenses when the tax burden goes up. Rest assured that he will do this.
Recent reports are showing that 47% of Americans' tax bill will be zero. That may be exactly what the 1040 form shows in the end but this is where the system is deceptive. The average "Joe" wage earner pays all of the taxes no matter how you slice it. When "Joe" works for a living, he only makes "earned income" which is taxed. When "Joe" spends his money he pays sales tax. When "Joe" consumes a product he pays all the evil businesses' taxes and the business owners' taxes.
The main point here is that it doesn't matter if you're a "progressive" who believes that the wealthy and the businesses should pay all the taxes or if you're a "conservative" who thinks that businesses should get a tax break. All taxes trickle down to those who earn income and who consume products and services. Taxing the wealthy and business only serve to hurt the economy by slowing the flow of revenue within the economy. Taxing the wealthy and business only causes them to retract which negatively affects employment.
There is no "fair" tax, there is only tax. When the government is too big and attempts to do the things that it was not intended to do, all elements of the economy suffer. The government does not adequately care for the elderly, the sick, or the poor. The government's feeble attempt only hurts the economy thereby increasing the need for more government services and more taxes. This is the vicious cycle that must be stopped and reversed immediately.
Take the housing boom for instance. The "Government" mandated that lenders lend to people who could not afford to pay. The "Government" did not regulate the way that the financial industry packaged bad loans to hide them from the investment community. Although this is a long debatable story, the fact remains that the government failed. The government over stepped its boundaries with regard to social engineering and under stepped with regard to regulating commerce. You see government messed around where it should stay out of and failed to get involved where it actually has authority.
So what's the solution? Simple, reduce the size of government and the role of government. We do not need the government to care for us, the government can't even care for itself. The government deals in disparity, not in prosperity. Stop looking to the government for prosperity, you will not find it. The best and quickest way to have more money is to stop spending it on the government. This is accomplished via your vote.
The rich get rich by the manner with which they live and the financial decisions that they make. The rich also have the means to find deductions and shelters. I know that they pay taxes but if they paid so many taxes as a percentage of their income, how are they still wealthy? The rich always bring in more revenue (note I didn't say income) than they expend. More in, less out. How do they do that? There are many ways to invest money tax free. When the tax burden is too much, the rich stop (or slow down) "earning" money. The rich also reduce expenses to live under the investments and other non-taxable revenues reducing the need to "earn" money. This also happens in economic recessions. The key is that although the numbers show that the rich pay taxes, they also have more control over what their respective tax burden will be.
Many say, tax the big companies. Again, I tell you, "WRONG." No company pays taxes. No company will pay for the carbon offsets under a "Cap-n-Trade" program. Companies figure out what their operating expenses are (overhead). Businesses then calculate based on market factors what's the maximum that they can charge for a product and still maximize sales. The maximum amount that can be charged must cover the operating expenses and provide for profit or they go out of business. What does this mean? You pay the tax when you purchase the product or service.
The rich man is also the business owner. Don't you think that he understands what his personal tax burdens are therefore understands how much profit that business must make? He must charge more, produce more, or cut expenses when the tax burden goes up. Rest assured that he will do this.
Recent reports are showing that 47% of Americans' tax bill will be zero. That may be exactly what the 1040 form shows in the end but this is where the system is deceptive. The average "Joe" wage earner pays all of the taxes no matter how you slice it. When "Joe" works for a living, he only makes "earned income" which is taxed. When "Joe" spends his money he pays sales tax. When "Joe" consumes a product he pays all the evil businesses' taxes and the business owners' taxes.
The main point here is that it doesn't matter if you're a "progressive" who believes that the wealthy and the businesses should pay all the taxes or if you're a "conservative" who thinks that businesses should get a tax break. All taxes trickle down to those who earn income and who consume products and services. Taxing the wealthy and business only serve to hurt the economy by slowing the flow of revenue within the economy. Taxing the wealthy and business only causes them to retract which negatively affects employment.
There is no "fair" tax, there is only tax. When the government is too big and attempts to do the things that it was not intended to do, all elements of the economy suffer. The government does not adequately care for the elderly, the sick, or the poor. The government's feeble attempt only hurts the economy thereby increasing the need for more government services and more taxes. This is the vicious cycle that must be stopped and reversed immediately.
Take the housing boom for instance. The "Government" mandated that lenders lend to people who could not afford to pay. The "Government" did not regulate the way that the financial industry packaged bad loans to hide them from the investment community. Although this is a long debatable story, the fact remains that the government failed. The government over stepped its boundaries with regard to social engineering and under stepped with regard to regulating commerce. You see government messed around where it should stay out of and failed to get involved where it actually has authority.
So what's the solution? Simple, reduce the size of government and the role of government. We do not need the government to care for us, the government can't even care for itself. The government deals in disparity, not in prosperity. Stop looking to the government for prosperity, you will not find it. The best and quickest way to have more money is to stop spending it on the government. This is accomplished via your vote.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
The Great Contradiction
The "Progressives" have been at this for over a hundred years. The socialist utopian agenda idolized by progressives is not new. A very simple search of history shows socialism beginnings as far back as the mid 18th century and with it's real growth coming around the French Revolution. No need for a history lesson other than to illustrate that these forces have been at play for a very long time.
Reading Socialist and Marxist speeches and writings throughout history we see an alarming contradiction. We see that both philosophies refer to providing for those who cannot. We see an equalizing of social and economic classes.
We then see and hear the early leaders of the movement openly advocating the extermination of those who do not adequately contribute to the whole of society. George Bernard Shaw (Nobel Prize winner) states that we should all go before a panel about every 5 years to answer what we have done or do that justifies our existence. Mr. Shaw further made a call to scientists to develop a gas that would quickly, painlessly, and humanely kill people. We saw this very thing with Nazi Germany. We saw mass extermination by means of starvation in Russia and the Ukraine even before the Nazi's.
Socialism and Communism cannot sustain without the suppression of the government. Socialism and Communism cannot exist without taking from the productive and giving to the unproductive. Inevitably the unproductive will outnumber the productive (why work when you do not have to?).
Here's the contradiction: if socialism, marxism, and/or communism are for the betterment of all. If these philosophies are to equalize economic classes, why then the extermination; both in discussion and in application?
See the cycle:
We then would have an extremely small percentage of our society who truly are unable to care for themselves. Those that find themselves in these extreme situations can be supported through local programs that can better serve their individual needs. This is where local charity groups and religious organizations do a fabulous job.
Again I say, the message is about personal accountability as a method of preserving freedom. There should be a safety net for those who literally cannot support themselves. Free entitlements from the government are NOT a safety net and are not free.
Reading Socialist and Marxist speeches and writings throughout history we see an alarming contradiction. We see that both philosophies refer to providing for those who cannot. We see an equalizing of social and economic classes.
We then see and hear the early leaders of the movement openly advocating the extermination of those who do not adequately contribute to the whole of society. George Bernard Shaw (Nobel Prize winner) states that we should all go before a panel about every 5 years to answer what we have done or do that justifies our existence. Mr. Shaw further made a call to scientists to develop a gas that would quickly, painlessly, and humanely kill people. We saw this very thing with Nazi Germany. We saw mass extermination by means of starvation in Russia and the Ukraine even before the Nazi's.
Socialism and Communism cannot sustain without the suppression of the government. Socialism and Communism cannot exist without taking from the productive and giving to the unproductive. Inevitably the unproductive will outnumber the productive (why work when you do not have to?).
Here's the contradiction: if socialism, marxism, and/or communism are for the betterment of all. If these philosophies are to equalize economic classes, why then the extermination; both in discussion and in application?
See the cycle:
- Some in society cannot care for their own basic needs.
- Society says, "We can do better than this, humans should not suffer.
- These are humans, they are entitled.
- We legislate the entitlement.
- The burden of the entitlement is borne by the whole.
- Too many entitlements cannot be supported by the whole.
- Taxation rises, reducing earnings for the whole respectively.
- Then the whole says it can no longer support the unproductive.
- You must justify yourself.
- You must be exterminated.
We then would have an extremely small percentage of our society who truly are unable to care for themselves. Those that find themselves in these extreme situations can be supported through local programs that can better serve their individual needs. This is where local charity groups and religious organizations do a fabulous job.
Again I say, the message is about personal accountability as a method of preserving freedom. There should be a safety net for those who literally cannot support themselves. Free entitlements from the government are NOT a safety net and are not free.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)