Friday February 12, 2016
Jump to content
Back in the '70's and '80's I read article after article published in highly regarded science journals stating that the Earth was going into another Ice Age and that man's interference was the primary cause. They really had me concerned.
Then, various world situations pulled attention away from the 'Big Freeze' that was just around the corner and it just sort of faded away. But, during that big scare, we heard temperatures would drop, worldwide, by 10's of degrees, as a result of man's interference with nature. The subjects of concern were the same things that people worry about now, regarding 'global warming' and were seen as harbingers of the eminent arrival of the 'Big Freeze'.
Well, we didn't freeze over and now those same 'scientists' are doing the same Chicken Little routine. Those scientists have flip-flopped. While they continue to play Chicken Little they have ditched the 'Big Freeze' for the pending 'Global Warming'.
Five years ago, we were told that in the following three years, hurricanes would increase by 50 to 100% and their intensities would be 'monstrous'. Yet, we have had the quietest of hurricane seasons for several years now. We were told that in less than five years (Unless we curbed 'Global Warming') sea levels would increase to the point that Miami and other cities close to the ocean would be flooded. Well, Miami is still there, as are the others and sea levels have not risen in the catastrophic proportions imagined at that time.
Seeing all that, it allows one to look back and re-read this article and see the same inflated fear mongering warnings as we've been entertained with before. The question is "Why would these people continue to scream wolf in ceaseless rhythm, without becoming somewhat skeptical of their own 'scientific' studies’?" Don't they ever go back and review their own predictions?
It reminds me of the local weather forecasts. When the weather person looks out seven days, the temps are to be such and such and the skies are clear, partly cloudy or stormy per predictions. But, by the following 4th day, the 5th, 6th and 7th day’s forecasts are totally different. Ever notice that? Yet, what weatherman has ever come back and said 'Well, our prior predictions were wrong and we've had to revise them for the following three days"? So, why should rational folks consider these 'forecasts' as any more accurate or creditable and why should we expect such honest introspection?
With the demise of the states, and the advent of the tools of the IRS and the Federal Reserve, the central government has every convenience at hand to dominate us, even as the Nazis in Hitler’s Germany. Added to that, Obama now has close to ¾’s million gun totting Federal Agents who, as we’ve seen in recent years, are more than willing to shoot us, if we resist this juggernaut bearing down on us.
Now, to use the worn cliché, ‘The chickens are coming home to roost’. The country is falling apart. Our government owns us, instead of the other way around. The people have figured out how to vote someone else’s wealth to themselves, which was predicted before the Constitution was adopted, as being the end of the nation. And, we can’t continue to blame Bush.
The rule of law is a joke, since people think the Constitution is an archaic, and obsolete document, that can be cut up at will. Now it is ‘Let’s do this’ or Let’s do that’, and whatever the majority wants is law, until the wind changes. And, all that if fine, if you’re with the majority. But, with the wind whipping it here and yon, how can any of us be in the majority for long? Then what? The Tyranny of the Majority is a real thing, and dangerous.
The Bundy/BLM deal showed just how quick this rabid government can turn on its own citizens, being more than willing to shoot any dissenter that dares resist. How we gloried when that little Chinaman stood before the tanks in Tiananmen Square, in ’89. But, how we of the majority denounce the Bundy’s of America. Both fighting communism, as best they could. Consider also Ruby Ridge, and the Branch Davidians near Waco; and, how, recently, rabid IRS agents willingly chewed up Tea Party organizations for daring to want to vote against the regime.
Is it any wonder that the feds, or even a state like Arizona can have laws that please the majority, while shafting those with some cash in their pockets?
Now, tell me again, how wonderful the IRS’s sliding income tax is such a wonderful thing?
Our goal should not be increase the wealth of the poor. We’ve always had the poor with us, as Jesus so aptly put it, and we always will. Neither did Jesus set about to make them financially better off. Our poor are richer than 95% of the world’s average citizens; therefore, I find this overpowering desire to rob from the rich to give to the poor a grossly misguided, detestable thing, for it can’t be done without harm to our neighbors. That harm is ignored, or even venerated.
This supposed “War on Poverty”, formally created in 1964, has spent untold billions of wealth taken illegally from people who don’t want to give it, with the result that, even now, people still feel this urgency (More than ever before) to protect the poor, whom they see as the real powerhouse in this nation. That too is a misconception. The poor don’t create jobs, and they don’t make any decisions past when to take a break. We have more under the poverty line now than then, or any time since then. That should prove to you that this war the socialists wage is at best very ineffective, and at worst, a hoax perpetrated to further establish a death hold around the necks of those who would be free.
Haven’t I quoted Marx to you, who said basically what you are saying?
This is directly from the Communist Manifesto:
“The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones.
Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other -- bourgeoisie and proletariat.”
There never was a long-lasting struggle of the proletariat (Workers) against the bourgeois (Owners/Producers) until after Marx and his compadres created the concept of communism. I’m sorry, but socialism is simply communism without the bayonets at the throat. (That comes later, as soon as they have their rule ironclad.) And, I took an oath to fight against that, and anything else harmful to the Constitution. I wasn’t around in 1913, but I can certainly stand for the Constitution now. And, no such violence has been accomplished against it, as has the multiple victories of the progressives in 1913, when they stripped the states of their power to protect us, in the senate (17th Amendment), when they passed the 16th Amendment (Creating the IRS, the 800 lb. gorilla in the government closet, which they let loose on anyone they don’t like.), and when they created the Central Bank, under the name “Federal Reserve”.
Hi, Tom, it seems that we are diametrically opposed on this issue of income tax versus sales tax, and the underlying issues behind that opposition.
I’ve written a large amount of stuff regarding what you wrote here, and have scrapped it for a few comments. Thus, the length of time, in answering. I had noticed in the prior discussions with you that you favor many aspects of ‘socialism’, and that you perceived the shift from a democratic republic in 1913 to a socialistic form of pure democracy, as a boon to the American People, which led to, among other things, the sliding scale income tax we have today.
To me, that was a detestable thing to do, based on some artificially perceived corrections seen as needing to be made. To fundamentally transform our entire government, and our way of life, on the pretext, or the fear of, the entire power of the nation being in the hands of a few men, to me is repugnant. The Progressives of that time were adept at misleading people, even as they are today. And, the impressions they made, led to the Tyranny of the Majority we see today. In one fell swoope, they ripped the state’s portion of control of the country from them; and turned the Republic into a pure democracy, which the founders strived so hard to prevent, seeing what isn’t seen today, that no democracy to that time, (And, in truth, even to today) have never survived for more than a century or two. They took our protection by the states away from us, leaving us at the mercy of a central government that steals our money from us, via this income tax, and lends it back to us, with so many strings attached that we suffocate under the ruthlessness of it. Pure democracies have always devolved into anarchy (And this is happening to us today), which has in turn led to autocratic, oft times brutal, governments.
They are trying, and the bigger cities are hand in glove with the feds, but other school districts, with state help is fighting back.
That shows responsibility, above and beyond. :-)
As for the jerk? You have to ask where all the protection is, in our various governments.
In Texas, they have the 'Three Strike law.
Three felony convictions, and on the third one, you automatically get life in prison. That isn't always pursued, and there are still repeat offenders, but it gets them off the street.
What is the downside to a system like that? It works for the states, so why not the feds? Is it not fair to the poor, as well as the rich? Does it not meet the demands of the liberals, and the conservatives?
Finally, with a sales tax, the feds, and the states, do not have a means to punish a particular group, just because they’re on the outs with the establishment. Look at how the current income taxes, state or federal, are structured to ‘punish’ or ‘restrict’ certain behavior, or certain ‘classes’ of people. (Thus, this article) The constitution intended us to be ‘classless’, meaning I’m just as good as you are, and you’re just as good as I am. So you wear a $1,500 suit with $800 shoes. You still put them on the same way I put on my cowboy boots and hat, right? We all come from the same place, and we all leave this world without checkbook or a pocket to put it in.
That is the beauty of the American dream. And, the sales tax methodology is the fairest way I know to tax each so that they pay their fair share.
Tom, you’re right in every sense.
BTW, those who desire a ‘flat tax’ or a true income tax (No exceptions, no favors added or taken away) should appreciate the mechanisms of the sales tax methodology. And, those who love our current system as well.
The latter’s main complaint is that the rich don’t pay their fair share, saying ‘Raise the rates on the rich’, should appreciate the results of the sales tax approach. Those who favor the flat tax, too want ‘fair share’ achieved, though with a different slant. Those who appreciate the current system, and want all the fluff and stuff stripped from it, are seeing the middle of the road, saying it will work if not so encumbered.
But, look at the sales tax approach. Everyone pays. That’s big on the conservative list. The rich pay their fair share. ??? Sure. That's big on the liberal list. Consider what the rich do. They spend money. Lots of money. So, a sales tax on that spending (Purchasing) would automatically collect from them, in proportion to what they spend, would it not?
But, some might soliloquize, that the rich don’t spend all that they make, hoarding it. OK, so they hoard some, or even most. What happens? That money goes into a bank somewhere. Then it’s lent out to those who want to buy something. Enter the sales tax, and that money not only provides to the common good, even though the rich have hoarded it; but it is taxed again, as well. Who cares if the rich ‘hoard’ or not? He paid his ‘Fair Share’, didn’t he? And besides, he never ‘hoards’ it, he lends it, to increase the influx of cash into our system, via the banks. That is the primary method of ‘growth’ in our economy, the lending through banks. Without that serious amount of cash re-injected, by the rich, it would be a closed system with little or any growth, even as more and more people coming into the market have to have that growth to exist.
Then too, consider the compounding of the sales tax on this same money. I buy a truck from the local dealer. Sales tax. The dealer takes that money, combines it with more he’s received from folks like me, and pays his wages to his employees. They take that same money and buy things. More sales tax. The only time it isn’t taxed, is when something is bought for resale. In that case, an exemption is given to prevent multiple tax cost in a product that goes through five or six hands before the consumer gets it.
I think I started that phrase, because many people think that if you aren't working in a factory, or not baking bread in a restaurant, you aren't 'producing'. But, we all produce. I was using that term, tongue in cheek, so to speak.
Last login: Monday, December 7, 2015