Sunday, Dec. 4, 2016    Login | Register        

Fiddling while America burns

Terry Garlock's picture

Count me as a conservative pleased at the results of the recent election, but fully expecting to be disappointed by my own Republican Party.

How many struggles between Republicans and Democrats will be over foundation issues that really matter? Who will take up the cause of regaining control over a bloated and arrogant federal government that uses the fig leaf of the Commerce Clause to justify reaching into every crevice of our lives? Who will champion returning the federal government to the constraints of its enumerated powers in the constitution? Probably nobody.

Will anyone in Congress acknowledge they operate like hogs at a bottomless trough, that deficit spending should be unlawful with rare exceptions and that their deal-making and infighting should be on priorities and allocation of only the money we have and no more? I seriously doubt it.

While battling to repeal parts of Obamacare, will anyone try to repeal Medicare part D, the prescription drug program brought to life by President Bush, funded with money we do not have? Of course not; an existing entitlement lives forever.

For decades Congress has raided the Social Security surplus to feed their current spending habits and refused to upset voters by confronting the fiscal train wreck approaching the system, a disaster made worse by their theft. What are the chances Congress will suddenly develop the courage and responsibility to leave the surplus untouched and make the hard decisions required to keep Social Security viable? Somewhere between slim and none.

What about the current Congressional dustup over the egregious practice of earmarks? While some wrap themselves in the virtue of temporarily suspending the practice of carving out pork for a member’s pet projects, others argue the dollars involved are negligible compared to non-discretionary spending.

I think both sides miss the point. Congress needs to radically change its culture of trading favors and siphoning off money in ways that are excused because the dollars are small compared to the huge amounts passing through their fingers. When will they consider every dollar of our money precious, as we do? Let me know when hell freezes over.

Democrats and Republicans will squabble over Harry Reid’s Dream Act, a bill to provide in-state college tuition discounts to illegal aliens who either attend college or serve in our military. Meanwhile, do you think the U.S. will deport the 10 million or more illegals living in the U.S.? Do you think our border with Mexico will be secured? Do you think we will stop spending billions to supply health and education and other services to illegals? Do you believe either party will stop pandering to the Hispanic vote? Neither do I.

The whole world, it seems, has its hand out for American generosity. I wonder who will fight to end the annual gifts of billions in foreign aid, often to people who hate us. Who will dare to speak the truth that natural disasters are a part of life, and when they strike throughout the world, our presidents need to stop pledging American taxpayer money because we are broke? In my dreams.

I wonder if any of the hard decisions will ever be properly confronted in this age of television. Even for arguments over small, incremental spending cuts, the camera can always find victims to cry and politicians to make promises, especially with an important election looming, like 2012.

Republicans will push Democrats inch by inch away from fiscal calamity when they should be pushing by miles, and I fear the benefits will be marginal, like giving an aspirin to a cancer patient. We don’t need baby steps, we need revolutionary spending cuts.

Our ship of state is on a course to fiscal disaster, like the Titanic steadily steaming to the iceberg. Instead of changing course, I expect that Republicans and Democrats will spend their time arguing over the best way to rearrange the deck chairs to improve the view.

[Terry Garlock lives in Peachtree City. His email is]



READ the facts about the Dream Act and not the propaganda from Senator Harry Reid's Liberal party leadership that must--END? Sen. Jeff Sessions put out the following release last week on the DREAM Act, that it’s an incremental illegal-alien amnesty bill. IT IS A VERY CAREFULLY PLANNED AMNESTY, FULL OF RHETORIC? BUT EVERY TAXPAYER NEEDS TO READ THE FULL TEXT OF THE WHITE PAPER. Remember your taxes are certain to accelerate upwards, to pay for all these indecent provisions. American citizens are already having money extorted from them to pay for the babies of illegal aliens born here, the education of illegal alien children, the health care for all family members and crammed prisons and jails for convicted illegal alien felons. All needs to to be paid for by your taxes? High on the list of Negatives is that the students, will be able to sponsor immediate family members under the chain migration law.

Not so much the students who would become naturalized citizens, but the chain migration that would snowball for all family members. As I have said before we are committing financial suicide, because the majority of guarantors never honor their affidavits to support the people they vouch? In the end the older family folks who have never paid into the Social Security system, become another public welfare liability. Hundreds of thousands or may be millions have been allowed into America on the surety of the original sponsor, who failed to support his-her immediate family. Over the years taxpayers have been confronted with this issue, as the US government never had the man-power to enforce this sponsorship law. Years of non-compliance has be come yet another Social Security, (SSI) Supplementary Income of Tax payers left to pay even heavier taxes in support of people who were sponsored and then neglected. The amount of money that cannot even be estimated, that is being appropriated every year to account for the illegal immigration invasion.

Another provision that misleads the public, is the fact that an illegal alien can join the military in this time of conflict and collect as a gaurantee a path to citizenship. Under under current law (10 USC § 504), the Secretary of Defense can authorize the enlistment of illegal aliens. Once enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces, under 8 USC § 1440, these illegal aliens can become naturalized citizens through expedited processing, often obtaining U.S. citizenship in six months.

The invasion hasn't stopped and never will until we cut of all welfare entitlements?

WANT THE REALITY OF COSTS? GOOGLE---Illegal immigrant costs and find out for yourself and then you decide? Then go to the Heritage Foundation website and it will explain with graphs, projections and text by the reputable in-depth analysis by Robert Rector.

Next week will add further enticements for illegal immigrants to come here, if this Dream Act passes?

Here is the full text of the Dream Act (S. 3827: Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act of 2010:

These corrupted legislators will not even tell you the real costs, for settling instant-citizenship infants (Anchor Babies?) Here is the last chance to harass your Senator or Representative by phoning (202)224-3121. Challenge them to stop the Left wing zealots for planting another Amnesty in America called the DREAM ACT. HOW CAN SENATOR HARRY REID AND HIS HIERARCHY OF LIBERAL CRONIES, PUSH PASSAGE OF THE DREAM ACT WHEN 15 TO 22 MILLION AMERICANS ARE GROVELING FOR A JOB. IN MOST CASES ANY JOB TO FEED THEIR FAMILIES OR LOSE THEIR HOMES TO FORECLOSURE?

I suspect the new conservative House of Reps will not vote this into law, don't you?

We hired Muslim Sunni bandits (Saddam's old cronies) to fight for us didn't we? Why not Mexicans?

I think most of the job groveling is done by Mexicans! USA people draw unemployment---$500,000,000 in Georgia alone from Washington! I know of no Mexican who got a penny of that.

Who caused that groveling anyway---could it have been caused during the 2000s by that administration negligence?

I wonder exactly which parts of Obamacare Mr. Garlock wishes to be repealed?

<a href=" appeals to teabaggers, but not to the majority of Americans</a>

Here's a graph that'll make Mr. Garlock reach for his antacids:
<a href="">American opinion on Obamacare</a>

PTC Observer's picture

I would vote to repeal the entire thing.

I don't think we need 20,000 more IRS agents. Those new employees will be part of the Treasury Union, the most radical union in the federal government.

Some key provisions of this law have nothing to do with healthcare but have everything to do with increasing the size and power of the central government.

[quote=PTC Observer]I would vote to repeal the entire thing.

I don't think we need <strong>20,000 more IRS agents</strong>. Those new employees will be part of the Treasury Union, the most radical union in the federal government.

Some key provisions of this law have nothing to do with healthcare but have everything to do with increasing the size and power of the central government.[/quote]

<a href=" myth of 16,500 more IRS agents</a> (Math challenged petey "rounds up" to 20,'s called PatriotMathâ„¢ folks...the same sort of math that turns a 60,000 person Glenn Beck rally into 2 million).

To a Fayette glibertarian, a "fact" is defined as "an opinion you really, really, really want to be true".

Observerofu's picture

"Health Care Law
57% Favor Repeal of Health Care Law
Monday, November 22, 2010"

"The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 57% favor repeal of the health care law passed by Congress in March, with 47% who Strongly Favor it. Thirty-nine percent (39%) oppose repeal, including 29% who are Strongly Opposed. "

<strong>"These figures are little changed from last week and support for repeal has remained constant for months. In weekly tracking since the bill became law, voter support for repeal has ranged from 50% to 63%."</strong>

Keep listening to Media Matters and the Huffington Post. Remember they said and you repeated here that Democrats where going to keep the House and only lose a few seats everywhere else. I mean Pelosi and Obama are so popular that you guys couldn't lose right?

Keep using blog sites and opinion pieces for your "facts" bacon it has worked so well for you. I will keep getting mine from National reputable sites.

"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt"
-Samuel Adams
Illegitimi non carborundum

Virtually all of Rasmussen's non-presidential polls are quicky robopolls. By law, they cannot contact cell phones or any phone where there is a chance that the recipient may be charged for the call.

24% of Americans are now wireless-only. This means that these Rasmussen robopolls effectively disenfranchise 24% of America. When you look at exactly WHO they are disenfranchise, it's even more discouraging: the younger you are, the more educated you are, the less likely you are to have a landline. Hispanics in particular are disproportionately wireless only.

So what does that leave in the polling pool?

Basically, older, whiter, less educated and less affluent (unemployed or retired) voters: in other words, you've got a bunch of dyspeptic aging baby boomers like you, Garlock, Petey C. Observer and mudcat.

Not a very representative sample, wouldn't you say?

(Unless you're oversampling the Tea Partisan demographic).

<strong>Here's a me one non-Rasmussen poll from November 2010 that corroborates the findings of this flawed Rasmussen poll</strong>. I'll give you the standard 3% margin of error.

Let's see if anyone else can duplicate Rasmussen's fantasy numbers.

By golly, I think you are correct. At least I hope so.

Your suggestion to make deep cuts now not incrementally is a wondeful idea also.

Let us do it this way: about 3/4 of all expenditures are for Defense, Medicare, Social Secuirty, and the Mexican border (and two wars).
Let us cut those 20% each--what do you say?

Yours is some kind of advice for a conservative who is running for office---all BS but sounds good.

TG--take a deep breath. You and your fellow conservatives are again fanning a needless and dangerous hysteria over the course of our country.

"Arrogant" Federal Government..."reaching into every crevice of our lives". What crevices are you worried about? My federal Government asks me to pay taxes which I do. In return, I have a government that acts for cleaner water, cleaner air, car safety standards, National Parks, interstate highways, cancer and other medical research, National defense, safer working conditions, VA benefits, Social Security, medicare, health insurance reform, and I could go on and on. Does the Federal Government spend money on some things I do not agree with--sure. But overall the Federal Government can be and is a positive force in the lives of Americans.

Social Security is not in an immediate crises. It is viable for about another 25 years but does need some long terms changes. The SS Trust Fund surpluses are invested in Government securities which will be repaid as due over the years. Would you prefer that the SS Trustees put surpluses under some mattress?

And the illegal immigrant situation is not a crisis but a continuing problem that needs to be addressed calmy. Most of these immigrants are not leaving the United States but will stay here working and raising their families. They do pay taxes. And their children need to be educated and healthy. How is America better served by denying educational opportunties to them? As you said, the United States is not going to deport 10 million or more people who are illegal immigrants. So we need to stop the angry shouting and find reasonable and humane solutions.

And I have tried to think of some ways the deficit has affected my life. Can't think of anything. A long term problem but nothing to get hysterical about.


PTC Observer's picture

Yes, I agree we should calmly dismantle the entire government apparatus, piece by piece, special interest group by special interest group, until we again have a government as small as possible to insure Life, Liberty, and Property for all of its citizens.

This includes protecting our national sovereignty by closing our borders to illegal human trafficking.

With Thanksgiving day approaching, here are 10 quick things I am thankful for in our little blogging community.

1. That I am not Terry Garlock. Sheesh..what a downer. I guess he is advising his financial planning clients to invest in gold coins, bottled water, spam, and ammo.

2. That Courthouse Rules has used his social security checks to have his brain connected directly to the Citizen and can type with his mind.

3. That Bacon went to college, and learned something.

4. That Observerofu went to college, and learned nothing.

5. That mayor Haddix keeps giving us things to blog about.

6. That Steve Brown will soon give us even more to blog about.

7. That Mike King does not have access to automatic weapons.

8. That PTC Observer and Georgia Patriot are not in charge of anything consequential.

9. That David's mom is around to apply blog spankings to ultra conservatives when needed.

10. That Jesus has not told Cal to kick anyone off the blog recently.

Happy Thanksgiving Ya'll!

PTC Observer's picture

You too pal, Happy Thanksgiving

Mike King's picture

You can forget about #7.

Happy Thanksgiving!

It's good to know that I'm not alone.

I hope the turkey isn't dry and your powder is.

Have a great turkey day with family and friends.

Thanks for the laugh.

Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours.

Ninja: How did you guess about the talking-mind type?
As to # 10, why would he with such interest going? The biddies are leaving him alone, I suppose!

Be assured MIKE has automatic weapons--in his head and closet.

I blogged my opinion of Garlock in this thread. Another BOORTZ. Limbaugh.

That the WBP will go through 1414s kitchen with a bulldozer like in "Grapes of Wrath" went through the Job shack! The county to build her a mansion on the back 40 however. No water carrying across the road as threatened by Maxwell! Run a pipe for her.

Can you imagine Eric raising cattle and Goats? Heck a cow must be worth $5000 a piece now, what with steak at $10.99/ pound. He can sell all of the goats he can raise in Gwinnett County!
Does he supply Melears with pulled pork?

Mike King's picture

I would agree that, calmly we as a nation can solve our problems sans histronics or the back room deal making that is the norm for politicos of both parties. I would demand of those elected to insure that not one more dollar is is passed on to our children or their children.

I do not speak for all, but for myself I , like my parents, enjoyed the freedoms maintained by living within their means and insuring I and my siblings did the same. There is simply no reason, aside from a national crisis, that would justify a government at any level for not doing the same.

Perhaps I do get a bit excited about my unborn grandchildren inheriting a debt they had no hand in creating, but that may be where we differ.

I find that blaming government for our debt, which seems to be your biggest concern, is incorrect.

I do not think our "government" had anything to do with this "recession," other than ignoring the obvious happenings.

It was caused by lack of regulation on business people who then selected dupes to borrow so much money it can never be re-paid. This would include homeowners and commercial buildings.

Additionally, those citizens who were trying to take care of themselves by investing in 401-k savings, primarily in the stock market, were also ruined possibly for life by the circumstances.

Even those on government pensions, feel some pinch also. Savings in other than the market, and inheritances invested have lost up to 40% forever maybe in home prices and investments. Even if the market ever recovers to 15-16,000, all that interest and income is gone.

If I remember correctly, business and government wanted us to drop pensions and invest in the market.

I own my home but it's value has dropped 30% here in town since 2006! I'm OK unless I wanted to move, then I would lose another 20% if I had to sell.

Those not on fixed pensions won't hurt until the inflation comes, but many are already begging for food and shelter.

People did all this, government did allow it because "regulation" is a bad word!

Mike King's picture

When government at any level is infested with power hungry zealots who wish nothing more than to do for themselves first, government is the problem. A lack of regulation is not the problem, but rather a lack of integrity and a committment to selfless service that has been allowed to become ingrained in almost anyone elected to public office. Take for example our local politicos, can you say that Mr Maxwell or Mr Smith are not duping the antics of, say Rep Rangel? Then are they any different than Mr Madoff or the executives at Enron?

Call me a revolutionary, if you must, but refer to me as honest.

Happy Thanksgiving!

I find it difficult to comprehend when you never blame our problems on anyone except "the government," and those who are democratically elected!

Since they should have no power to regulate business, what do you propose?
Selective regulation, which business will buy? That is what we had!

Business, right now, as a whole are making money hand over fist, but are keeping it in reserve, or purchasing other competitors, or investing in more land. Hiring no one! This after being bailed out with money which we bailed out the banks.

Soon all the stock we bought and all of the stimulus money will have been repaid to the government, and still there will not be nearly enough jobs.
They don't care.

birdman's picture

I don't frequently agree with some of your letters, but I find I do at times. But from someone who is not considered "conservative," I want to differ with many comments and compliment you on your letter. Having said that, here are a few of my comments. Unfortunately you fall into the tired old right wing "bashing the helpless" a bit. Why are we suddenly attacking Illegal Immigrants? Simply it is a group with no spokesman, no support, no legal standing, no way to fight back. A convenient way for the right wing to strike fear in the hearts of Americans with no chance of rebuttal. Simply look at the adds in Arizona picturing Illegal immigrants murdering farmers and taking our jobs. Really? Not so. I am not advocating illegal immigration, I am a legal immigrant. But the portrayal and attacks are unfair. Does anyone out there really strive to pick cotton for 60 cents a bushel in the hot sun with no benefits? Of course not. But the illegal immigrant will.
But more over, you hit the real problem, no politician, Republican or Democrat will actually fight any of the issues you brought forward. The Debt Reduction Committee put forward several painful but doable suggestions. Both parties rejected them. But I must say that the Repubs (and you) reject one aspect in particular, raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations. The tired argument that taxing corporations will cause job loss fails in actuality. Corporate profits are a RECORD HIGH!! Where, I ask you, are the jobs to go with the profits? Not happening. So how does creating an environment for corporate profits create jobs if record corporate profits are not leading to jobs?
Extending Bush tax rates for the upper percent will lead to job creation. Really? Then why have we experienced 10 percent unemployment with the Bush tax rates in effect? Simply Boehner and company are telling us that if the richest don't get it, then NO ONE gets it! Wow. Now that's support for the middle class.
In essence, as I said, you hit the nail on the head. We need to increase federal income and decrease federal expenses. But we need to do it in a painfully fair manner. Not solely on the backs of the middle class like the Repubs. want. An interesting debate for another day.

One last comment. I agree we shouldn't send billions overseas. But we are a compassionate country and when a disaster happens, we don't simply say "sucks to be you" and turn our backs. Not our way of thinking. We help everyone with no asking for credit. Even our enemies like Iran. We know the govts. of the nations take credit for our food and money shipments, but we send them to help the people, not to show off. It is the American way.

Great letter Terry. Have a great Thanksgiving.

What you have done here is display your ignorance about picking cotton--when cotton was manually picked (rare any more) pickers were paid by the lb NOT the "bushel"! Having crawled on my knees between cotton rows, dragging the sack behind me, I do know how it was done!

I think Birdman was simply using "pickin cotton" as a way of saying we won't roof houses, pick cucumbers, etc.

You may be right but don't you think it's wise not to make specific cmts about something you obviously don't know anything about?

I don't think slaves got anything like money for sacks of cotton except very sore and infected fingers.

But you are correct about pounds in the normal sense.

One man on a cotton picking machine can now do the work of scores, and in one day.

Apparently some cotton is still picked by hand and not by slaves. (Mexicans, maybe).

However, thinking about it, I must say that picking cotton by hand into a bushel basket would be difficult to mash into the basket, and out, and would require emptying too often.

Most products Mexicans pick are picked by the bushel or basket which is counted by a counter as they are dumped.

I think many of us here sometimes hurrriedly comment and make simple mistakes.

(did you catch the extra r?

No, but I see an incorrect "i"! can not live without thought--we are designed that way.

Now as to the thinking difference in gooder people (liberals) and badder people (conservatives) the thinking pattern is more me, myself, and I with the conserves.

The notion that those who are successful in chinking away some money, either by earning some of it by inheriting some, and stealing some, are not obligated to spend it in a way to share it with others (like paying taxes with no illegal deductions), is non-Biblical, (eye of a needle you know?), also, it is undoubtedly selfish, and with the thinking button temporarily turned to "off."

They also vote no, no, no, no, no and also nay. They propose nothing useful to the masses, ever. They vote for wars that they nor their children participate in fully! (As Cheney said, (I had better things to do--get seventeen deferments to attend school). Also, Ronnie, made documentaries, and George W. learned to fly a plane and campaigned for his Father, the way of the "blue-bloods." (Roosevelt's son was his military aid).

Bristol, Willow, Piper, and Sarah never bothered and those under-age never will serve. The son got out of that mess early for a short while, and I don't know where he is now or what he is doing.

Yeah, I think!

Robert W. Morgan's picture

You said "We need to increase federal income and decrease federal expenses. But we need to do it in a painfully fair manner" and I agree completely. How, you may ask? That would be the Fair Tax. Tax our consumption, not our income. If close to 49% of us do not pay Federal Income Tax - how fair is that? If most of the illegal immigrants pay no income tax - how fair is that? When drug dealers and other criminals pay noincome tax - how fair is that? The Fair Tax solution replaces all Federal Income Tax and then reaches out to tax everyone - I mean everyone - even tourists, legals, illegals - everyone. That my friend is fair.

Live free or die!

PTC Observer's picture

The problem with the Fair Tax is that there is no opportunity to punish the "rich", you know no class warfare. Therefore, the leftist lose one of their primary emotional tools to control the masses.

As long as we have a leftist leaning government, and we will for the forseeable future, the Fair Tax has no chance. Just getting the Congress to agree to repeal the 16th Admendment will be impossible on this point.

Now if you want to continue to push the Fair Tax proposition, I am sure that there will be many in Congress that would support this concept if we continue to have an income tax.

So, in my estimatation proposing the Fair Tax is akin to tilting at windmills and it is potentially dangerous since the concept of a VAT tax is always in the minds of the parasites.

Robert W. Morgan's picture

Understand that completely, but if in 2012 we see a bunch of Congresspeople running for reelection wth a pledge to pass the Fair Tax along with a true conservative for President - then we have taken the class warfare hatchet out of the hands of the race panderers and the ultra wacky left.

And the Fair Tax does in a way punish the rich - sort of. Their prebate will not cover all the tax on their basic living expenses because they live at a higher standard. And of course when they buy luxury items they will be paying the tax. I really like the fairness of that system. Getting a bunch of power hungry politicians to pass it is a tall mountain to climb, but worth the effort.

Live free or die!

[quote=Robert W. Morgan]
And the Fair Tax does in a way punish the rich - sort of.

The Fair Tax is a fraud that redistributes the tax burden from the rich to the middle class.

and about that "punish the rich"....<a href="

Some "punishment".

PTC Observer's picture

Here's a response from the most avid socialist we have on the board. It is all about class warfare and having the "club" of punishing the "rich".

Success should be punished? It continues to astonish me that people like Bacon actually believes what they say.

My goal is to teach my kids the ideas of self reliance, hard work and wealth creation to support themselves and their families. It is likely that their children will all work for the government like good little state soldiers living their lives off those that are productive. Right Bacon? Isn't that what you want for your children? I am certain that you taught them well, live off others.

Robert W. Morgan's picture

Transferring the tax burden to the middle class, poor, illegals and tourists while keeping on the rich is not fraud, it is common sense. Almost half of Americans pay no federal income tax while high income earners (not the truly wealthy/rich) pay most of the burden. A consumption tax (provided it eliminates the IRS) is extremely fair and will stimulate the economy faster than anything Prezbo will try.

If your goal is to punish high income earners, rest assured they will pay more in taxes because they will buy more stuff. If your goal is to punish the truly rich - those with high net worth and lots of assets - same thing. Or you could just look at "fairness" using Prezbo's definition and then the whole thing falls apart because in Prezbo's world, only the rich should pay taxes. Since he's never had a real job nor has anyone around him, the overlooked fact is that the overtaxed "rich" will hoard their wealth instead of creating jobs in the private sector.

If you don't like the Fair tax, suggest something else. Or better yet, try to explain how the current system of taxation combined with our current leadership is getting us on the road to economic recover. Huh? I'm listening.

Live free or die!

PTC Observer's picture

You will never get a response, he is unprincipled. Or at least he doesn't know how to defend his principles because they are founded upon one essential precept, robbery.

Time to carve the turkey. Today's turkey is named Robert W. Morgan.

[quote=Robert W. Morgan]Transferring the tax burden to the middle class, poor, illegals and tourists while keeping on the rich is not fraud, it is common sense. [/quote]
<strong>WRONG</strong> You are NOT "keeping" the tax on the rich, you're <strong>REDUCING</strong> the tax on the rich. In essence, you want to exchange the current income tax system for a nationwide sales tax, and you want people making between $40K and $200K to pay <strong>MORE</strong>, and people making more than $200K pay <strong>LESS</strong>. Please tell me why it is in MY best interest to pay MORE in taxes and Paris Hilton to pay LESS in taxes.

[quote=Robert W. Morgan]A consumption tax (provided it eliminates the IRS) is extremely fair and will stimulate the economy faster than anything Prezbo will try. [/quote] First of all, I'd love to see any research you might have proving that a consumption tax will "stimulate the economy faster". I think you made this up. Prove me wrong. Secondly, you FairTax zealots are really hot on eliminating the IRS, but fail to acknowledge that a new agency, the Prebate Bureau (or whatever it's going to be called), will be as big or bigger than the IRS as it will need to accomodate the prebate check needs of every single American (not just working stiffs like the IRS). Where's the savings there?

[quote=Robert W. Morgan]If your goal is to punish high income earners, rest assured they will pay more in taxes because they will buy more stuff. If your goal is to punish the truly rich - those with high net worth and lots of assets - same thing. [/quote] "same thing"? <strong>WRONG</strong>The Treasury department has studies showing that "the more you earn, the more you spend" holds true <strong>up to around $150,000 per year</strong> and tapers off drastically for incomes over $200K per year. There's only so much high-grade cocaine that Paris Hilton can shove up her nose. The net result is that the rich get richer while those earning less than $200K a year simply tread water.

[quote=Robert W. Morgan]If you don't like the Fair tax, suggest something else. ...Huh? I'm listening.[/quote]
I seriously doubt that you listen. You seem to be the type to discard any inconvenient facts that disagree with your own preconceived view of the world. But to answer your question, I think we need more "steps" in the existing progressive tax system, and I think we ought to restore tax rates up to 50% on the highest earners, just like they were for the majority of the Reagan administration. If those rates were good enough for Saint Ronnie, they should be good enough for me.

PTC Observer's picture

Same old socialist tripe, class warfare, taking others property using force, envy.

We're still waiting to hear your defense of your principles.

Robert W. Morgan's picture

unless it just immature wealth-envy. If by some chance your statement is true about the higher income people spending less than those earning under $150,000, it explains how a lot of high income folks stay that way - they save and invest instead of mindless spending. So be it. Maybe for once we can start rewarding good behavior in this country instead of pandering to those who are repeat offenders in the bad-decision department.

A discussion about the well-researched Fair Tax turns into a diatribe about what is best for you as an individual and 2 attempts to portray rich people as Paris Hilton? Odd, to say the least. Suffice to say that people who have read the book and have access to the research will be the ones debating the Fair Tax and hopefully passing it into law affter the next rejection of liberalism in 2012. By then over 50% of the House and about 1/3 of the Senate will consist of first or second-termers and of course a new President, so the enviornment will be mostly cleaned up of those old power-hungry career politicians and the old and irrelevant leftists. The '60's hippies have had their last chance at power and they blew it by overreaching - jsut like they did in the '60's. Ironic.
Don't be concerned about your prebate check, you will get it every month just like the rest of us. No need for another big federal agency - just look how fast Nancy got her $250 vote-buying checks out to every Social Security recipient. Push of a button.

Live free or die!

Your meandering fact-free defense of the so-called FairTax is an indictment of the intellectual shallowness of the proposal.

It's been fun watching you splutter in mock indignity. I particularly enjoyed your "just you wait!" pouting.

To summarize: <strong>The FairTax is an intellectual fraud that is predicated on the belief that people making between $40,000 and $200,000 per year hate the Internal Revenue Service so much that they'd gladly volunteer to pay more taxes under an alternative taxation system.</strong>

Good luck convincing the vast majority of Americans that it is in their best interest to lower their standard of living so that the rich might increase theirs.

PTC Observer's picture

Still waiting to hear about the philosophy you employ to judge others that are more successful and your "right" to confiscate their property by force of government, simply because they have more than you.

Since you are very clear about your attacks on the rich, I for one would like to hear your lucid rationale on why you believe it's OK for you and people like you to take other people’s property and redistribute it.

Now of course there is always a possibility that you simply don't have any fundamental principles other than theft by taking.

Still waiting to hear your sound principles on your belief system, my guess is they are founded primarily on envy and the realization that you are pretty much a failure in life. Therefore, you have irrational responses to those that have accomplished more with their lives.

Just remember, the moment we all become equal is the day we are all unequal.

mudcat's picture

Mind dead, knee-jerk liberal fool. What else can he cite except "fairness" and therein lies the beauty of the Fair Tax. Liberal politicians that never read bills will automatically vote for it because it is "Fair" donchaknow. I doubt Crisy is a failure, PTC Observer - after all he lives in PTC and eveyone here is succesful. I think he either a CPA, making money off the confusing tax code or a unionized government worker - possibly at the airport.

PTC Observer's picture

In my book he's a failure, a moral failure with bankrupt ideas that have lead to millions of people being sacrificed on the alter of the state.

Sadly, he has likely raised his children to be nice little socialist soldiers continuing his legacy of moral failure.

And he is not alone, there are millions of people just like him in the country. It is our responsibility to expose them. To shine a light of reason and truth on their dark corrupt philosophy of statism.

Against "fairness" and CPAs, and now specific jobs (airport) seem to be people who have bad ideas.

I have wondered what your specific wage-earning job is mud! Or if retired, are you old enough to draw government checks and if so do you donate them?

If you are legitimately retired, what did you do for a salary before you retired?

You weren't a tax collector like Saint Paul were you? I'll just bet some of your salary when you worked (nasty word--worked) included in some fashion some tax money! I would exclude "housewife' as not working, provided you had 3-5 children to raise.

But I'll bet you worked enough to get points for Social Security.

My idea of a fair tax is this: NO DEDUCTIONS ALLOWED 1 page form to submit
wages up to 10,000 --2%; 50,000 --5% (with 3-4% for graduations between)
90,000 --8% (with 6-7 % (for graduations between 50-90)
250,000--15% (with 8-15% (for graduations between 90-150)
1 Mil --25% (with 15-25% (for graduations between 150k and 1
Above --30% (with 25-30% (for graduations between 1- & above.

Corporate: Minimum of 5% for existing
Minimum-Maximum 5-20% on sales.

Just have to watch the amount of gross is all them!

Having the government obtain the money to operate on what is spent rather than what is earned, surely would break them in a Depression!

It also does this:
Low earners will be taxed about the same for essentials as would high earners, therefore the burden would be shifted to the workers from the rich.

Of course the rich would spend more than the workers but as a percentage of earnings, never!

There would be no "fair" tax on the excess income of the rich--it would be put into the bank for the poor to borrow and go into debt---while earning high interest rates, requiring even more to be borrowed!

Earning high income is not wrong--using it to fleece the poor is.

PTC Observer's picture

You characterize illegal immigrants as, "..a group with no spokesman, no support, no legal standing, no way to fight back."

Do you live in the United States?

Secondly, profit does not automatically equal jobs. Where did you get this idea? Profits are used in two ways, one to repay investors or two to re-invest back into the business. This investment is usually in the form of new equipment or buidings. In American it is done primarily to reduce expensive labor. Labor that is more expensive than most of the rest of the worlod. American companies are failing to reinvest in their businesses in this country because they have better opitions elsewhere. Why? Well because mostly that the business environment is better somewhere else. Unemployment in American will continue at higher rates because we are simply more expensive. We can hope that those with money will spend their money on American goods, but unfortunately most of our manufacturing base is being shipped overseas.

Finally on your final point, as Ben Franklin said nations don't have friends they only have interests. We don't give our taxpayer money to other countries because we are "compassionate", we give our money to presever our interests. Charities give money out of compassion not nations.

As a legal immigrant you should know better than most that the American dream is built upon individual freedom, not government largess.

Cyclist's picture

You are free to take some of that money you make flying coupled approaches to minimums and write a big check to the “guv” to take care of those illegals. Nobody on this board will stop you.

Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

Cy, I'm betting that Birdman just may not know what "Autopilot" means but that's ok too. I know for sure he doesn't know squat about picking cotton!

America is like the proverbial frog in a pot of water, the heat has been increased slowly over time to keep us from jumping out. The socialist revolution has been going on almost 100 years, starting ironically with the racist Woodrow Wilson in 1913. He was truly the first President(Democrat) with socialist tendancies. In his first term, Wilson expanded government greatly. Wilson persuaded a Democratic Congress to pass the Federal Reserve Act, Federal Trade Commission Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, the Federal Farm Loan Act and America's first-ever federal progressive income tax in the Revenue Act of 1913. The second big progressive push came in 1933 with FDR(Democrat). Roosevelt expanded the nanny state again, tried to "spend out of a depression"(sound familiar?) and created social security(the world's largest ponzi scheme). The next big government socialist was not elected but came to power after the murder of John F. Kennedy. Lyndon Johnson(Democrat) ramped up the war in Vietnam, and gave us Public Broadcasting, Medicare, Medicaid, environmental protection, aid to education, and his "War on Poverty." He was renowned for his domineering personality and the "Johnson treatment," his coercion of powerful politicians in order to advance legislation.(sound familiar?)
We are now approaching the end of the socialist(communist?) revolution in America, most have slept throught it in entirety. -GP

PTC Observer's picture

I am afraid that you need to go back a little further to capture the beginnings of the socialist (progressive era).

Read please, "The Tyranny of Change: America in the Progressive Era, 1890-1920" by John Whiteclay II Chambers

Good general overview of this period but biased left.

for in-depth analysis of the progressives and their impact on our economy consult

Ordered the book(read the first few pages online, looks good) and saved the site. -GP

PTC Observer's picture

I have about 12 other books on this era if you feel the need to learn about this period. ;-)


Ad space area 4 internal

Sponsored Content