Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Mary953 (75.16)

The Source Of Our Problems (Please Read)

Recs

41

April 25, 2011 – Comments (31) | RELATED TICKERS: TR , UTHYL.PK


I don't often ask that you read something, but this is worth a minute of your time -

Charley Reese's final column for the Orlando  Sentinel...He has been a
journalist for 49  years. He is retiring and this is his last column.

This  is about as clear and easy to understand as it can be. The
article is completely neutral, neither anti-republican or
democrat.  Charlie  Reese, a retired reporter for the Orlando Sentinel,
has hit the nail  directly on the head, defining clearly who it is that
in the final  analysis must assume responsibility for the judgments
made that impact  each one of us every day.  It's a short but good
read.  Worth  the time.  Worth remembering!

Be sure to read the Tax List at the end.

        545 vs. 300,000,000 People    -By Charlie  Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create  problems and
then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if  both the Democrats and the Republicans are
against deficits, WHY do we  have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are  against inflation
and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high  taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The President  does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on 
appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't  write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal  policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the  Federal Reserve Bank
does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen,  one President, and nine Supreme
Court justices equates to 545 human beings  out of the 300 million are
directly, legally, morally, and individually  responsible for the
domestic problems that plague this country.

I  excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that
problem was  created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its
Constitutional  duty to provide a sound currency to a federally
chartered, but private,  central bank. 

I excluded all the special interests and  lobbyists for a sound reason.
They have no legal authority. They have no  ability to coerce a
senator, a congressman, or a President to do one  cotton-picking thing.
I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million  dollars in cash.
The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No  matter what
the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility  to
determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of  their energy convincing you that
what they did is not their fault. They  cooperate in this common con
regardless of party.

What separates a  politician from a normal human being is an excessive
amount of gall.   No normal human being would have the gall of a
Speaker, who stood up and  criticized the President for creating 
deficits. The President can  only propose a budget. He cannot force the
Congress to accept  it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives  sole
responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and 
approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House?
John  Boehner. He is the leader of the majority party. He and fellow
House  members, not the President, can approve any budget they want. 
If the  President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they
agree  to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million  cannot
replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of 
incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic 
problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you
fully  grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the 
federal  government, then it must follow that what exists is what  they
want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they  want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want  it in the red.

If the Army & Marines are in Iraq and  Afghanistan it's because they
want them in  Iraq and Afghanistan  ...

If they do not receive social security but are on an  elite retirement
plan not available to the people, it's because they want  it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do  not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they
hire  and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and
advice they  can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to
regulate and  from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let
them con you  into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical
forces like "the  economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent
them from doing what  they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they  alone,  are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They,  and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are
their  bosses.

Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own  employees...

We should vote all of  them out of office and  clean up their mess!

Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the  Orlando  Sentinel 
Newspaper.

This might be funny  if it weren't so true.
Be sure to read all the way to the end:

                                Tax his  land,
                                Tax his  bed,
                                Tax the  table,
                                At which he's fed.
                          
                                Tax his tractor,
                                Tax his mule,
                                Teach him taxes
                                Are the rule.
                            
                                Tax his  work,
                                Tax his  pay,
                                He works  for
                                peanuts  anyway!
                        
                                Tax his cow,
                                Tax his goat,
                                Tax his pants,
                                Tax his coat.
                       
                                Tax his ties,
                                Tax his shirt,
                                Tax his work,
                                Tax his dirt.
                       
                                Tax his tobacco,
                                Tax his drink,
                                Tax him if he
                                Tries to think.
                                Tax his cigars,
                                Tax his beers,
                                If he cries
                                Tax his tears.

                                Tax his car,
                                Tax his gas,
                                Find other ways
                                To tax his ass.

                                Tax all he has
                                Then let him know
                                That you won't be done
                                Till he has no dough.

                                When he screams and hollers;
                                Then tax him some more,
                                Tax him till
                                He's good and sore.

                                Then tax his coffin,
                                Tax his grave,
                                Tax the sod in
                                Which he's laid...

                                Put these words
                                Upon his tomb,
                                'Taxes drove me
                                to my doom...'

                                When he's gone,
                                Do not relax,
                                Its time to apply
                                The inheritance tax.

                                Accounts Receivable Tax
                                Building Permit Tax
                                CDL license Tax
                                Cigarette Tax
                                Corporate Income  Tax
                                Dog License Tax
                                Excise Taxes
                                Federal Income Tax
                                Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
                                Fishing License Tax
                                Food License Tax
                                Fuel  Permit Tax
                                Gasoline Tax  (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
                                Gross Receipts Tax
                                Hunting License Tax
                                Inheritance Tax
                                Inventory Tax
                                IRS Interest Charges
                                IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
                                Liquor Tax
                                Luxury Taxes
                                Marriage License  Tax
                                Medicare Tax
                                Personal Property Tax
                                Property Tax
                                Real Estate Tax
                                Service Charge Tax
                                Social  Security Tax
                                Road Usage  Tax
                                Recreational Vehicle  Tax
                                Sales Tax
                                School Tax
                                State Income Tax
                                State  Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
                                Telephone Federal Excise Tax
                                Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
                                Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
                                Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge  Tax
                                Telephone Recurring and  Nonrecurring Charges Tax
                                Telephone    State   and Local Tax
                                Telephone Usage Charge Tax
                                Utility Taxes
                                Vehicle License Registration Tax
                                Vehicle Sales Tax
                                Watercraft Registration Tax
                                Well Permit Tax
                                Workers Compensation Tax


STILL THINK THIS IS  FUNNY?
Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, & our  nation was the
most prosperous in the world.
We had absolutely no  national debt, had the largest middle class in
the world, and Mom stayed  home to raise the kids.

     What in the heck  happened?  Can you spell 'politicians?' 

                                   GO AHEAD. . .  BE AN AMERICAN!!!

31 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On April 25, 2011 at 11:59 AM, catoismymotor (78.40) wrote:

Please provide the link. I'd like to forward this to some friends. Thank you.

 

Report this comment
#2) On April 25, 2011 at 12:12 PM, SweetMircha (92.54) wrote:

Ditto ++ - Be a Canadian. We're taxed even more than the American! 

Example: Property Transfer Tax - 1% on the first $100,000  + 2% on the remaining portion. An average house in Victoria,BC is $550,000 approx; and then there's HST of 12% added on top of that tax.

Report this comment
#3) On April 25, 2011 at 12:20 PM, ChrisGraley (99.66) wrote:

Excellent post Mary.

Report this comment
#4) On April 25, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Mary953 (75.16) wrote:

I will try to find a link for this.  It came to me as an email with a suggestion that I might like to pass it on - no link given.  I could not think of a more receptive audience than this one.  Sometimes the truth of an article just rings out so clearly that you have to pass it along.  That list of taxes felt like a prison chain being forged one link at a time.  The knowledge that they are all relatively new taxes shows how desensitised we have become to being burdened by taxes on everything around us.  We must, in this state, justify why we should NOT have an income tax in addition to the other taxes.  When did it cease to be a matter of politicians having to justify the need to Have a new tax?

Report this comment
#5) On April 25, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Mary953 (75.16) wrote:

This must be the original source.  It even has a few lines that I edited out because I hate it when people exhort me to pass something on!

http://www.eons.com/groups/topic/2457457

Report this comment
#6) On April 25, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Turfscape (32.32) wrote:

In brief, I disagree that this is the "source" of our problems. Government is the symptom. Our inability as people, as a society, to live in cooperative freedom is the source of our problems.

My neighbor hates the fact that I'm free to do what I want, so he votes for some candidate that promises to pass laws against the abomination that is my lifestyle.

I hate that my neighbor opposes my lifestyle, so I vote for anyone who opposes his candidate.

My candidate opposes his candidate, but has no idea what to do about paying for the roads...so he raises taxes.

The people on the next street hate paying taxes and don't own cars, so they vote for my neighbor's candidate...solely because he opposes my candidate, and my candidate is the one who raised taxes to pay for streets that they don't use.

Their candidate now wins and passes a law that says I'm not free to do what I want on my own land. In the meantime, that candidate ignores the tax/road issue because he campaigned solely on passing the "stop that dude's freedom" issue. So the tax continues unreviewed, and the roadwork goes over budget. Now we're in debt.

The "stop that dude's freedom" law now enrages the Warm Beverage party, which decides to get rid of that candidate at all costs...no matter who replaces him. They succeed...and now the election is between a plumber who won a reality TV contest and a Broadcasting College dropout. Reality TV Plumber campaigns that the Dropout is just a repeat of the last guy...and we don't want that, no matter what. The Dropout campaigns on the fact that Reality TV Plumber kicks puppies for fun, so he couldn't possibly be qualified to represent the electorate.

And the debt grows. And our freedoms shrink. And wars get started. And jobs get lost.

We don't vote for candidates. We don't even vote for a party. We vote for "not that party". It's like Seinfeld's bit about sports, and players jumping from one team to another...we're just rooting for laundry.

Report this comment
#7) On April 25, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Mary953 (75.16) wrote:

Turfscape - It strikes me that the one thing that your wonderful election lacks is a QUALIFIED candidate.  Perhaps you should run - and open with a few jokes.  Maybe like your comment.  LOL

Report this comment
#8) On April 25, 2011 at 1:17 PM, mtf00l (50.64) wrote:

Turfscape and Mary953,

You're both right!  Turfscape for his comments in general and Mary953 for realizing there are no "QUALIFIED candidates"!

Go team!

Report this comment
#9) On April 25, 2011 at 1:25 PM, catoismymotor (78.40) wrote:

Mary, thank you for the link.

Report this comment
#10) On April 25, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Jbay76 (< 20) wrote:

+1 rec...thanks Mary

Report this comment
#11) On April 25, 2011 at 1:43 PM, chk999 (99.99) wrote:

When in doubt, vote them out.

The Founding Fathers never envisioned a permanent political class. They thought that leading citizens would do their civic duty by taking elective office for a while and then, duty served, would return to their private affairs. This would be a much better model because we would not only get more capable people, but they wouldn't overstay their welcome.  

Report this comment
#12) On April 25, 2011 at 1:48 PM, FleaBagger (98.34) wrote:

Devoish isn't around to say it so I will: politicians are wonderful people, no, better than just wonderful people. They're public servants! They bring us numerous bureaucratic jobs to employ the unemployable, and they need more pay to attract better people who will not send our troops overseas. It's not Obama's fault, anyway. He's the best president since Kennedy. Or something like that.

Report this comment
#13) On April 25, 2011 at 1:52 PM, SweetMircha (92.54) wrote:

I posted the link on my Facebook page & even sent a copy to my husband & myself just so that I can have a chuckle saved for later.

Report this comment
#14) On April 25, 2011 at 1:57 PM, smartmuffin (< 20) wrote:

I have to agree with turfscape here.  Blaming "the politicians" is both easy and fun.  I agree with the author that blaming special interests and lobbyists is pointless because they have no inherent power to make politicians do things.

By that same logic, blaming the politicians is pointless because they have no inherent ability to just magically BECOME congressmen or presidents.  The (incredibly sad) state of affairs is, we VOTED for these people.  We are getting the government we deserve, because this is what we demand.  Look at the polls.  Americans are in favor of reducing the deficit, but not in favor of raising taxes or cutting spending.  So what's someone who wants to win an election to do?  Exactly what they've BEEN doing, make a lot of empty promises (lies) about their massive budget cuts that don't actually cut a single thing anyone might notice (because then they'd freak out and get you kicked out of office).

Back in medieval Europe, it was probably easy to blame Kings and Emperors for the sorry state of affairs of a particular nation.  They were born into positions of power.  It was dumb luck whether the King's son would be wise and just or an idiotic tyrant.  Not so in America.  We choose the idiotic tyrants.  Barney Frank was not born a Senator.  People chose him.  They represent us, as disgusting as that may sound to the small minority of us who pay attention and understand issues and such.  The politicians we have represent the average American.  You can't change them without changing US.

Report this comment
#15) On April 25, 2011 at 2:11 PM, jasenj1 (45.25) wrote:

Corporations != Citizens.

 I will toss in that part of the problem is treating corporations as citizens. Companies (whose sole purpose to exist is to return a profit) are allowed to influence those 545 people. Corporations have _NO_ responsibility to the well-being of human citizens (other than as shareholders to return a profit). And corporations have a large concentration of $$$ which the 545 want/need to get re-elected.

I'll also throw out there that the two-party system creates a false duopoly. You must be either R or D for your voice to matter. The major parties' stranglehold on politics is tragic.  

I get tired of hearing we can't have this regulation or that tax because it will hurt corporate profits. Yes. That't the point. Otherwise do away with all safety regulations and all environmental regulations. Killing workers and polluting is cheaper than making work environments safe and disposing of toxic by-products.

 /Rant off.

Report this comment
#16) On April 25, 2011 at 2:28 PM, whereaminow (91.14) wrote:

Correction. There was one qualified candidate. Hopefully, he'll run again.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#17) On April 25, 2011 at 2:29 PM, mtf00l (50.64) wrote:

"An article written by Reese for the Orlando Sentinel newspaper on March 7, 1985 under the title Looking For Someone To Blame? Congress Is Good Place To Start was widely read and distributed in modified form via e-mail during 2008 United States presidential campaign under the title The 545 People Responsible for America's Woes.[10] The article commonly forwarded in 2008 was slightly modified from the 1980s version, substituting Pelosi for Tip O'Neil and adding a reference to Iraq. It is not clear if the modifications were made by Reese, as the e-mail claimed. Quote from the original 1985 article:

"One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices — 545 human beings out of the 235 million — are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country." [11][12]

He wrote a similar article in 1983, listing 546 people, including the Vice President in that version.[13]"

from;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charley_Reese

Report this comment
#18) On April 25, 2011 at 4:57 PM, CluckChicken (46.64) wrote:

Just because I get really annoyed when people write things as fact that are just blatant lies."Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, & our nation was the
most prosperous in the world.
We had absolutely no national debt
"Quick read of the taxes list gives us:Federal Income Tax – First came about in 1861 (to pay for Civil War) all but the top tier was repealed in 1868 and the modern Income Tax law took effect in 1909.Inheritance Tax – First appeared in 1797 to 1802 to pay off debt from Revolution. It appeared again in 1861 till 1872 to help pay for the Civil War. It again appeared in 1916 to help pay for WW1 and has stayed since. Personally I like this tax, I like the idea of taxing the dead more than the living and I have no plans of leaving anything when I die.Property Tax – This has existed in one form or another since the founding of the country.Excise Taxes – These have come and gone in various forms since the founding of the country.The Nation’s debt was 2.65 billion in 1910. At the birth of the nation the debt was about 75 million and in 1830 we had paid off 99% of the debt (more was created in war of 1812) but never cleared the debt. The Civil War added about 4 billion in debt of which 55% was paid off by the start of WW1 and since then we have not been so good at paying it off.

Were we the most prosperous nation in 1900? Well that depends on how that is defined. Sure the US GDP was either the world’s highest or second (depending on chart, China was either 1 or 2) but ranked about 5th in per capita.

Report this comment
#19) On April 25, 2011 at 7:29 PM, devoish (98.84) wrote:

CluckChicken,

They don't want to know. But it is good you correct them. Can you imagine the last column of a jounalist loaded with unchecked, incorrect information. Do you blame the editor, the author, or the Government or his readers for encouraging his incompetence.

Hi Flea.

Best wishes,

Steven

Report this comment
#20) On April 25, 2011 at 9:34 PM, CluckChicken (46.64) wrote:

Steven,

"Can you imagine the last column of a jounalist loaded with unchecked, incorrect information."

Yes if I was their editor because they would not get a second column under my watch. I blame both the writer for calling them self a journalist in the news business (those in entertainment writing are free to make stuff up, like we expect them too) and the editor for failing at their job.

Cluck

Report this comment
#21) On April 25, 2011 at 10:43 PM, whereaminow (91.14) wrote:

Since we're doing the fact checking thing, the article was originally written in the 1980's

Quick read of the taxes list gives us:Federal Income Tax – First came about in 1861 (to pay for Civil War) all but the top tier was repealed in 1868 and the modern Income Tax law took effect in 1909.Inheritance Tax – First appeared in 1797 to 1802 to pay off debt from Revolution. It appeared again in 1861 till 1872 to help pay for the Civil War. It again appeared in 1916 to help pay for WW1 and has stayed since

So far, nothing you've listed here existed in the 1880s, all having either expired their temporary existence or not yet created.

Can you find any taxes from the 1880s that match the list above? If not, please consider having the integrity to renounce your emotional rant.

Were we the most prosperous nation in 1900? Well that depends on how that is defined. Sure the US GDP was either the world’s highest or second (depending on chart, China was either 1 or 2) but ranked about 5th in per capita.

Source? (And I highly doubt that China, which was struggling for independence during that time - Boxer Rebellion - was wealthier tha n the US)

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_per_cap_in_190-economy-gdp-per-capita-1900

According to that source, US was third just behind Australia and New Zealand. China was 34th.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#22) On April 26, 2011 at 8:41 AM, devoish (98.84) wrote:

CluckChicken,

Good answer.

Report this comment
#23) On April 26, 2011 at 9:01 AM, ChrisGraley (99.66) wrote:

Noticed how after David shot that down, devoish sneaks in with another quick affirmation for it?

Politics > Facts

 

Report this comment
#24) On April 26, 2011 at 9:03 AM, rofgile (33.91) wrote:

Mary:

 Isn't much of the source of our current problems (large deficits and spiraling debt) that we've lowered our taxes to the largest degree in the last fifty years?

 

 I am 100% for raising our taxes across the board, if that quickly closes our revenue gap, ends the deficit, starts paying down our national debt, and makes the dollar stronger.

 That would be the very definition of "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" - since we would all collectively tighten our belts now to help make the country in better footing for future generations.

 Isn't this the more rational view than "taxes are evil!!".  

 Also note that tax rates got extremely low right before the great depression.  That point in time was where the inequalities between the uber-rich and poor were the greatest within the US (and where we are heading towards). 

 -Rof 

Report this comment
#25) On April 26, 2011 at 9:26 AM, CluckChicken (46.64) wrote:

David in Qatar

"Can you find any taxes from the 1880s that match the list above? If not, please consider having the integrity to renounce your emotional rant."

Since the person that posted that stated no date and I really had no interest in looking to see if it was some poor copy of something that old, and even then wrong, I took it for being recent.  But let’s take a look at 1880 and since you asked if I could find any taxes from the list and many of the listed are State taxes it actually makes it easier:

Inheritance Tax was first introduced in Pennsylvania in 1826 and has been part of the state’s tax code since. Many other states also followed PA’s lead through the 1800s.

Income Taxes as stated first appeared in 1862 and all but the top tier, those making more than 10,000 a year, was repealed in 1868 (as previously stated) and has stuck around since.

Excise Taxes have been imposed on many different items since the founding of the country.  For example in 1790 one would pay an Excise Tax on all of the following distilled spirits (Liquor Tax), carriages (Vehicle Tax), refined sugar, tobacco (Cigarette Tax), snuff and slaves. Various form of this came and went on items as they went from luxury goods to common items, as the government needed funds to pay for wars, and of course varied from state to state.

In 1725 China was the world’s largest economy and stayed till sometime around 1900, the exact year the US became the established largest economy will vary depending on method of measure, source of data and of course how one wishes to define “most prosperous in the world”. In 1900 the sun still never set on the British Empire which by nearly all accounts was the nation all other countries envied.

I know people think we have high taxes but we don’t but to think none of the various levels of government didn’t have taxes is just slightly silly. 

Cluck

Report this comment
#26) On April 26, 2011 at 3:23 PM, whereaminow (91.14) wrote:

Cluck,

I think it's pretty obvious, especially considering his constant referencs to federal politicians, that the author is speaking only of the federal government. Oh, I bet he hates all the governments, but this rant is directed at the 545 in the federal government.

So citing state taxes is not a refutation of his position.

Now, you can quibble with semantics, and perhaps find a tax or two that was in limited effect during that time. The essense of his position, however, is unquestionably correct.

I just watched you and devoish argue about whether the author of this kind of piece should be fired for his lack of credibility. But now, upon review, it's obvious to me that he has far more credibility than you.  

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#27) On April 26, 2011 at 3:38 PM, whereaminow (91.14) wrote:

Just a little more on Federal Income Taxes from Wikipedia:

Early Federal income taxes

The first income tax suggested in the United States was during the War of 1812. The idea for the tax was based on the British Tax Act of 1798. The British tax law applied progressive rates to income. The British tax rates were 0.08% on income above £60 and 10% on income above £200. The tax proposal was developed in 1814. Because the treaty of Ghent was signed in 1815, ending hostilities and the need for additional revenue, the tax was never imposed in the United States.

In order to help pay for its war effort in the American Civil War, the United States government imposed its first personal income tax, on August 5, 1861, as part of the Revenue Act of 1861 (3% of all incomes over US $800).[13] This tax was repealed and replaced by another income tax in 1862.[14]

By 1866, the measure earned over $310 million, the highest in the previous 90 year history of the country and a level not reached again until 1911. [15]

In 1894, Democrats in Congress passed the Wilson-Gorman tariff, which imposed the first peacetime income tax. The rate was 2% on income over $4000, which meant fewer than 10% of households would pay any. The purpose of the income tax was to make up for revenue that would be lost by tariff reductions.[16] Also, the Panic of 1893 is said to have something to do with the passage of Wilson-Gorman.

In 1895 the United States Supreme Court, in its ruling in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., held a tax based on receipts from the use of property to be unconstitutional. The Court held that taxes on rents from real estate, on interest income from personal property and other income from personal property (which includes dividend income) were treated as direct taxes on property, and therefore had to be apportioned. Since apportionment of income taxes is impractical, this had the effect of prohibiting a federal tax on income from property. However, the Court affirmed that the Constitution did not deny Congress the power to impose a tax on real and personal property, and it affirmed that such would be a direct tax.[17] Due to the political difficulties of taxing individual wages without taxing income from property, a federal income tax was impractical from the time of the Pollock decision until the time of ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment (below).

David in Qatar

 

Report this comment
#28) On April 26, 2011 at 4:55 PM, CluckChicken (46.64) wrote:

The entire basis of the writing is:

Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, & our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in
the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

As we have discovered the “Most prosperous nation in the world” 100 years ago was at best questionable fact. The line “absolutely no national debt” was a lie. Since nobody has any accurate data on middle class numbers the claim of largest middle class is again at best questionable. Finally the line “not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago” was again a lie. If at best half of what you are basing the essence of the position on is questionable at best and the two most important are just wrong, can you really say it is “unquestionably correct”? 

As for them only speaking of Federal taxes is kind of strange since they went out of the way to list:

Dog License Tax, Fishing License Tax, Fuel Permit Tax, Hunting License Tax, Recreational Vehicle Tax, Sales Tax, School Tax, State Income Tax, State Unemployment Tax, Telephone State and Local Tax, Vehicle License Registration Tax, Vehicle Sales Tax, Watercraft Registration Tax & Well Permit Tax. 

 

“I just watched you and devoish argue about whether the author of this kind of piece should be fired for his lack of credibility. But now, upon review, it's obvious to me that he has far more credibility than you.”

Is it really that wrong that I expect those claiming to be reporting the truth to actually report the truth? Maybe if more people actually held people accountable for what they claim they will or can do, like I seem to do, we would not be having this discussion.

Cluck

Report this comment
#29) On April 26, 2011 at 9:22 PM, whereaminow (91.14) wrote:

Cluck,

Fair enough. But your agenda is clearly not to speak the truth either. It's one thing to set yourself to debunking a popular chain email 

(the email you are seeing is not his original column)

but get off your high horse. Your claims were even less factual and contained no sources. 

Are you familiar with the term hypocrisy?

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#30) On April 26, 2011 at 11:05 PM, CluckChicken (46.64) wrote:

DiQ

Is name calling really the best you can do?

GDP figures: http://www.theworldeconomy.org/MaddisonTables/MaddisontableB-18.pdf

This really doesn't state if a nation is the "most prosperous" because there are many different ways to define that.

Debt history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

Inheritence tax: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Inheritance_tax

Excess Tax:  http://www.suite101.com/content/income-tax-history-in-the-united-states-a82098

Not having high tax rate: http://www.cnbc.com/id/42192653?slide=11 & http://www.worldwide-tax.com/

Not sure how you would want me to list the Fed and State tax break down for sources, going with the common knowledge there.

You obviously are upset that somebody has the galls to question anything about this post. The true sense of the post should be to question. You seem very happy to take it all as truth. Of course I really should just realize that none of this will ever be enough for you because you believe to be all true.

 

Cluck

Report this comment
#31) On April 27, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Mary953 (75.16) wrote:

I think you are moving on to an emotionally charged tangent here guys. 

Perhaps it is the list at the end that focuses attention on taxes.  Perhaps it is because taxes are due in mid-April in the United States and that marathon of filling out forms and writing checks has just hit most of us.  Whatever the reason, the taxation part of this has gotten undue weight.  I cannot even say for certain that the list of taxes was a part of the original article.  It was a part of the email I received, but I can only tell you that it was in the email, not the article.

I read the article as an indictment of an elected government that is pledged to represent the people that send them to Washington.  These representatives have no one to blame but themselves if the government is running poorly because they have the power to fix it!  300 million people cannot make decisions easily.  This is why we have a representative form of democracy, to allow us to have a say in how we are governed but still allow for a government that is not in total gridlock.  Did anyone else get this out of the article or was it just me?

I am not going to join David and Cluck in the debate that they have going about taxes.  Rof, I will answer your question in this manner - All taxes are not evil.  No government can exist without the ability and right to tax its citizens for the necessary expenses of government.  The question arises when you try to define necessary.  There are specific obvious needs such as defense and the infrastructure that are needed for our country to survive and function.  I believe education is necessary because democracy assumes an informed and educated population.  Also, if I am to travel over a bridge, I want to know that the designer and builders of that bridge are educated enough to know their jobs.  There are other appropriate expenditures.  Unfortunately, I have never seen a politician that could not find a way to spend as much money as s/he was given.  Taxes do not pay down the deficit, they are used to build new debt.  Still, this is not the point of the article at all!!

This man is saying that there is a responsibility and an accountability that goes with the elected offices that are handed off by our citizens.  If a politician does not accept and live up to the responsibility, then that politician should be voted out.  To let Congress or the President lead us down a path to ruin and then pretend that they are blameless is a joke and totally unacceptable.  Since the President and Congress are responsible for appointing members to the Supreme Court, the members of the court are one step removed from direct accountability.  It does not make them less responsible for policy.  They are the court of last appeal in more ways than one.  They should hold the last line of defense in keeping our country constitutionally strong and sure.  To often, they act as another legislative group.

David, you and Cluck might want to start a debate on another blog - a "To Tax or Not To Tax" sort of discussion.  I have been enjoying the comments and try not to jump in, but we were getting off topic a bit.  For what it is worth, I did not realize that Mr. Reese had written on this topic before.  It does make sense though that he would choose to return to a topic that he feels most strongly about for his final column.  Perhaps it is just what I would have done.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement