Tea Parties
Tax and government size protests (tea parties) were held across the nation today. Observers found a surprising fact. Tea parties were much more heavily attended than anyone thought possible. The one Ol' BC attended in south central Indiana was much much more of a hit than I had ever imagined it could be. Congressman Mike Pence (R-IN) spoke to the crowd. One eleven (11) year old delivered a remarkably eloquent address to the crowd. Ol' BC's son in Florida attended a tea party in West Palm Beach and said it too was much better attended than anticipated. This msnbc piece tells a little about tea parties.
President Obama vowed a simpler tax code in response to the vastly attended tea parties. Hellooooo. You're not listening. Simplifying the code would be alright. Scrapping it altogether would be preferable. LIGHTEN OUR TAX LOAD would be a much better response.
Just an observation.
posted by Ol' BC @ 8:31 PM
39 comments
39 Comments:
B Hussein still doesn't get it. He refuses to get it. He's a power-mad hypocrite who's on a path to be a one-termer.
The damage he causes during this one term will be severe if Congress doesn't shift in the next election. Trouble is....Republicans still aren't showing any backbone (most of them), and nobody really believes in them anymore.
nable
It's ok, Colonel.
Have you EVER seen such a massive outcry against the BS coming from these fascists? Americans are waking up.
... and not a day too soon.
RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com
Are you talking about the Federal Income Tax, the OASDI (social security) tax, the HI (medicare) tax, sales taxes, cigarette taxes, gasoline taxes or what? Which tax is really bothering you guys?
The federal income tax serves as one of the best means of controlling behavior without making an actual law that currently exists. By offering credits and deductions for preferred behaviors and tax penalties for unapproved behavior, the government controls us. Is that what bothers you? Because a lot of poor people get their FIT back, but not their OASDI or HI taxes. Or sales taxes, for that matter.
Wealth redistribution is also important. Countries without some form of wealth redistribution tend to be some of the most corrupt, most horrible countries to live in, where the few control most of the wealth. Is that what you are after?
Are you against social security taxes? Medicare taxes? Sales Taxes?
You might also consider reading the article "No pain, no gain: taxes, productivity, and economic growth" by Louis A. Ferleger , Jay R. Mandle. See http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=JwJVJ24hrmXP8wVvpy0QtvC8wpHrpfWPnnd1GVpGPdb4QT1TNcsz!-948357054!-957050587?docId=5000207134 for an exerpt.
Essentially, the data suggests the lower the tax burden, the lower the productivity of the country.
What about state income taxes? Are you against those also? Are you against a publically funded military? Or would you prefer the wealthy each have their own private militaries? What about roads, public schools, utilities, etc.?
As for the fascist comment by RightWingRocker...
Are you aware that fascism and liberalism are two opposing philosophy? Fascism is overwhelmingly anti-liberal.
In fact the Fascists blame capitalist liberal democracies for causing class warfare. Fascists guiding tenants are about nationalism, unity, and making ones country strong in the face of other nations who are assumed to be constantly struggling for power. They also fiercely suppress dissent.
The fact that the term is bandied about by the conservatives against liberals only underscores a marked antipathy toward actual informed argument. Were the conservatives truly open to actual study and learning, they would find out just how rigid their own viewpoints really are. And a rigid party will not weather the storm.
This is what is happening to them now. This is why their party is in shambles. Until they remove themselves from the ultra right wing, unswerving, uneducated, nutballs, they will topple.
In a nutshell, the fasci (bundle of sticks) is strong, but it is also singularly linear, and can only come at problems from a very limited, spear-like mentality.
Excellent condign image in your last statement, Mark. Apropos.
The conservatives, obstreperous but without a lot of merit lately, have become negatory obstructionists defending their point of view with little more than name-calling. Oblama. Fascist. B. Hussein. They do this, I think, in an attempt to regain control of the negative labels in the same fashion that they once made the word "liberal" a negative lable.
LOL. and I misspelled "label" in the last sentence. Sorry. Apparently my "l" finger is faster than my "e" finger.
The Conservatives are masters at re-branding. They can never call their political enemies by their real names. It is completely indicative of a controller's mentality. Naming things, whether positive or negative, provides us with the illusion of control. This is also interesting and completely contradictory to the Conservatives supposed political stance of less governmental control. In truth they want nothing of the sort. They pay lip service to less governmental control, but are the first ones there at the rallies for controlling women's rights and controlling gay rights. It is humorous at the very least.
The conservatives are doctrinaires of mendacity. It is hypocracy to say that government isn't the answer, but to turn around and ensure all their beliefs and theories are legislated and made enforcable by government.
Instead of teaching people not to want abortions, they want the government to enforce their opinion. Yet, they say government isn't the answer.
Humorous is right. I am surprised the conservatives are so anti-tax all the sudden - the tax laws have been proven to be one of the best control mechanisms ever.
Example: Right now tax law does not favor marriage over single. This is so that homosexuals will not have ammunition to argue that the government is discriminating by not allowing them to get married. At one time, there was a benefit to being married - this of course gave heterosexuals more buying power than homosexuals - without ever actually having to come out and saying so.
If conservatives wanted to actually oppress gays legally, the tax code is one of the best ways to do it. If liberals want to equalize things, the tax code is an important part of this.
However, I have noted that that none of the posters here have bothered to state which taxes bother them.
I doubt they are willing to talk on a level that requires intelligent debate that relies upon actual knowledge of the subject of actual tax law.
Still waiting for a decent argument about taxes...
You won't get one. Perhaps they can smell that you are a tax code/law teacher and won't even show up to play? ;)
Perhaps.
I think the conservative idea behind this is that if they get rid of taxes, then "socialist" programs won't get funded, and wealth won't be redistributed.
The fallacy here is that this also includes the military. The military is a socialist program the conservatives (and most liberals) contend we need. Imagine the cut-backs necessary if we no longer provide public funds for the military to provide for a common defence.
I posit that anti-tax demonstrations are also anti-military support demonstrations. Let's tea-bag the military funding! Yay! (that was sarcasm, by the way)
I just don't think most anti-tax conservatives have a clue what taxes are really about and just how much of it provides the infrastructure we need.
That said, this article bothers me considerably.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/INSIDE-WASHINGTON-Rude-apf-15091434.html?.v=1
Repaying credits defeats the purpose of a credit - and goes against sound taxation theory.
The operative word in both "National Socialism" and "Socialism" is socialism. Nazism is just a particularly brutal variety. The difficulty with any variety of socialism--including what we call conservatism, is the proponents' willingness to initiate force to gain their ends.
The individualist deals on a wholly voluntary manner with those who will reciprocate in kind. If possible, the individualist will simply walk away from the socialist, as he will with any other criminal, and ignore him. If the evildoer won't allow him to walk away, the individualist is within his rights to defend himself to whatever extent he deems appropriate.
Of course, I'm speaking philosophically here, and to survive practically in this collectivist-dominated society, one has to try to fit in by means of stealth, or build a cabin in the wilderness.
Ah, but that is not how you defined it earlier. Your new definition still does not establish Abraham Lincoln as a Nazi, which you claimed on an earlier thread.
And no one in this thread said anything about Nazis. Someone said something about fascists, though. Nazis are just a subset of fascists. I.E., not all fascists are Nazis.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Difference_between_fascism_and_nazism
Nazism was evolved in Germany which were the people that mainly were against Judaism. As for fascism, it took place in Italy and focused mainly on a system of government that was under a dictator, or a ruler who had absolute power.
http://www.angelfire.com/tx5/ara/pde/nazismvsfacism.html
Those links should help you better define Nazism and Fascism, so you don't get them confused in the future.
"The individualist deals on a wholly voluntary manner with those who will reciprocate in kind. If possible, the individualist will simply walk away from the socialist, as he will with any other criminal, and ignore him."
You do realize, don't you, that the military is a socialist program (as it is government-run, government-funded, and used for collective benefit)? Therefore, by labelling the socialist a criminal, you just labeled our soldiers as criminals, since they work for the state and protect the state.
Thanks for your lack of military support.
Vincent,
The reason for my Nazi reference regarding Lincoln was that a segment of American society wanted to dissociate from the increasingly abusive actions of Washington against them.
Allow me to restate that when the delegates to the Constitutional Convention signed on, none of them imagined that they could never withdraw.
Rather than to simply allow the secession, Lincoln prosecuted a brutal war against the Confederates, attacking no only the military, but civilian targets, men, women and children of whatever race or age.
I hasten to add that neither side was without fault, but the Confederates' initial desire was to simply "walk away."
Vincent,
To address your query on taxes, which I answered by implication earlier, The rational individual will find that forced taxation is an initiation of force, and not to be sanctioned by any moral man.
Getting from here to there requires careful thought, because of the disruptions involved. To make a wee scratch on the sorting out of this thinking, may I suggest that Social Security be made fully voluntary, with those opting out to be paid the sum of that which they've been taxed, with interest. No newly emerging wage earners should be allowed to enter the Social Security system. With the knowledge we've gleaned in the past few decades, any individual can set up a far better retirement plan on his own, or with readily available advisers.
Those who are in the system, and who opt to remain, should receive the benefits they've been led to expect.
All this can be paid for by means of the sale of unneeded federal lands, military bases and other assets.
Interesting comment on taxes. I'll have a reply on that later.
As for Abraham Lincoln, that doesn't make him a Nazi or a Fascist. Also, didn't the Confederacay start the Civil War by attacking Fort Sumter?
Also, didn't that attack take place on April 12, 1861? Abraham Lincoln didn't assume office until March 4, 1961. Sounds to me like James Buchanan's handling of things helped bring about the war, not Abraham Lincoln.
As for the OASDI tax (social security), the government's job is to provide for the social common good - including military, transportation, elderly, infirm, and other infrastructural needs.
Most people are unable (or unwilling) to plan for a future when they already are unable to make ends meet (education in high school about financial planning and good decision making skills could help here, something not currently emphasized in public schools). Thus, OASDI provides for the elderly because we, the people, will not or cannot do it.
Vincent,
Without fighting the War Between the States all over again, the policies that led to the conflict did predate Lincoln's Presidency.
South Caroling seceded because of federal policies that restricted its rights as a state, according to the Tenth Amendment, and for other reasons.
The US Army occupied Fort Sumter without authorization and without orders. South Carolina was merely attempting to evict trespassers.
Had President Lincoln any respect for the US Constitution he would've stopped hostilities 'pon assuming office, based 'pon that document.
Instead he initiated an attempted genocide of the Southern States which left over 600,000 American men, women and children dead.
Vincent,
All of what you've said doesn't speak to the issue of making the Social Security ponzi scheme voluntary.
One of the first things you must do is disabuse yourself of the childish fallacy socialists call "the public or social good." "Social good" is a nebulous, undefinable non-concept whose only rational meaning seems to be "to each according to his needs from each according to his ability."
If everyone could command the totality of his own productive ability and use it for his own needs and wants, everyone would be far better off than under today's fascistic welfare stste. The tenth of one percent or so who really can't produce enough to survive can easily be helped by means of private charitable organizations.
Specifically addressing SS, anyone and everyone (in the absence of the aforementioned ponzi scheme, would realize that they must take care of their future. Or make a deal with their kids.
It's well known that if the several hundreds of dollars a month sent by each of us into the SS rathole were instead sent to a 401k, IRA or any of a huge number of other savings and investment programs, we'd each retire with money orders of magnitude higher that is returned to us from SS.
And, one can will the leftovers to his kids. Or his cat.
SS is simply indefensable, and without meandering into all the other wasteful welfare schemes inflicted 'pon us by the government, the SS ponzi scheme will very soon collapse unless the working young send all of their earnings into the fund (which the feds will spend on some war or other instead of continuing the swindle another few years.
Oh, and Vincent,
The gradual withdrawal scheme I briefly outlined above is just that: a way for us all to get out of the SS ponzi scheme gradually and with minimal pain. If something very like this is not done, the sudden crash of the house of cards will be very painful, indeed!
It'll make the War between the States look like a barroom brawl.
Well, I am not really in favor of Social Security in general, but I understand the underlying rational behind it - which made more sense in the 1930s than it does now, with 401Ks, IRAs, etc. The stock market is much more accessible now than it was then.
If OASDI is the tax you guys are wanting to get rid of, I am all for it. What about HI (medicare) taxes?
Are you just against federal taxes, or also against state taxes? What about funding roads, schools and the military?
Vincent,
Medicare is no more than an insurance policy with hundreds of useless, needless government drones on the payroll, driving up costs.
The cost of medical care would be less than half what it is, if government were completely out of it. I know five doctors that retired early because the massive government reporting mandates required them to spend too much time at their desks, to keep medically needless individuals employed, and thus charge the patients more than necessary.
My first San Diego doctor spent thirty years setting up his record keeping and accounting system and would've had to change everything to satisfy the bureaucrats. Instead, he closed his practice and retired. Arguably, he was the best internist I've ever had.
And this doesn't even begin to address the government-supported malpractice problem. Or the fact that physicians deserve to be able to run their businesses and practices in the absence of outside interference. The consumer should be the judge.
Of course, one problem with privatizing social security with stocks, bonds and so on is the instability of those markets. Seriously, how much are most 401Ks worth today, compared to two years ago?
The consumer should be the judge? What a joke. Frankly, Hogan, the average consumer is a nimrod. I have no desire to let the herds judge the quality of overall health care for me or anyone else. Correct me if I'm wrong, but would that job better be served by people who understand health care?
Frankly, I would appreciate knowing my doctor lives up to certain standards and oversight beyond Ricky Joe Redneck saying he's a standup boy.
Take the aviation industry. We choose what airlines we fly with, and this is just fine with me. However, I prefer a certain amount of oversight when it comes to safety and ethical standards. There is nothing wrong with this. It is desirable. I get so tired of hearing this either/or debate. We can have a little of both, you know?
Socialism can and does function rather nicely with Capitalism, for the most part. It is necessary and desirable that there should be a balance there.
Mark,
We already know what you think of your fellow man. I can only imagine that you get that through introspection.
Vicent,
Yes. Thanks to GW Bush, the Democrat Senate and B Hussein, the market has slid rather badly. It's gone down before and up again. Thing is, as much as my portfoliio has slid, it's still doing better that it would've with SS, where it would've gone to buy guns for the Somali pirates, or the Mexican drug runners.
One should pick one's advisers well, or study the market himself. It's not a gambling casino.
Yes, I think the common American person is of inadequate education or mental ability. Therefore, I find the average American citizen incapable of running health care. Is that stance unwarranted? Does it come from introspection? If your attempt was to insult me, it went rather sideways. You only insult yourself by proclaiming to me that you are not willing to entertain the actual thrust of the argument. You reveal your fear and inadequacy by attacking everything but the issue. Well done. You make the right wing proud.
Mark,
History tells us of a time in which if someone like you referred to any individual as a "common American" he'd punch you in the face. It is, my friend, an insult to any individual, and tells you why I use the term "introspection." You're obviously using yourself as a benchmark. My benchmark is in a very different place.
It's the only thing I can guess. I see very intelligent people, perhaps dumbed down quite a bit by the government children's prisons, who have gotten used to people "taking care of them."
We, in the world of the literate, call that induced complacency.
We have to wonder, following your view, how you expect the country's incompetents, an unbalanced proportion of whom are employed by government, to do any sort of a better job making our choices for us than we can for ourselves--or consulting with our own chosen experts. After all, these government drones are "common Americans too, are they not?
Sorry, Dude. You can trust FDA, USDA, CIA and any of the often unConstitutional, always incompetent and utterly unneeded collections of America's commoners if you want, but I'll trust my own senses, discriminatory and critical abilities; in short, my mind.
I'd appreciate it if I were left free to do so.
I am happy that you have the freedom of choice, Hogan. However, when it comes to health care, you are likely ignorant. I presume something here, but I would be willing to bet that you know precious little about it. Without such authority, I do not think you would make competent choices about physicians or anything else. You get to pick your doctor. So what? What do you know about how good your doctor actually is?
This is my point. The average American is pitifully uninformed when it comes to things he wishes to have rights to govern. I do not believe this is advantageous to anyone.
Mark,
I don't have to know everything about health care. I only have to choose a good physician.
B Hussein wants to deny me that choice, and apparently, so do you.
Are you telling me that Der Fuhrer will do a better job choosing my physician that I? Do you actually think I can get Der Fuhrer to personally choose my physician? If not, then who will? Some faceless drone whose name I won't be able to learn?
Is this the kind of a world you want? A faceless drone choosing your next car? Your next pair of trousers? Where you're going to work? If you're going to work? Who will be your spouse?
The willingness to give up your birthright might make you a trustworthy savage, at home in the cage you're building for yourself, but I'd rather be a human being.
All I am saying is that I might better trust people who have made it their business to know what a good doctor is and what a bad doctor is than my own incompetence in these matters. Get it?
All I am saying is that your choice is based purely on ignorance. Understand?
The next thing you will be claiming is that you have a right to pick which pilot flies your plane to Las Vegas. Frankly, your choice is a privelege, not a right. There are few service industries that allow us to pick who gives us our service, so why should it be so with health care?
I am really just playing devil's advocate here, but the point I think is valid...
Mark,
On your first paragraph, I agree. Fact is though, none of those people are in government. Government people, who by their nature, will take responsibility for nothing.
The key, and I tried to say before, is not in knowing everything, but knowing whom to ask. Part of my plan to avoid the incompetents, liars and thieves in government is to make it my business to know whom to ask. My wife is even better at it that I.
It should be a part of everyone's life to make it a point to know whom to ask.
And, since you mention it, I never fly. I'll probably gird my loins and fly when we decide to go to Scotland next year, but if I travel within the continent, I take the train or drive. It's not that I don't trust the airlines (although there's much reason to be concerned), but I won't easily subject myself to the Nazis that inhabit airports. More needless government BS.
Post a Comment
<< Home