Ron Paul and Jessie Ventura?

[Stevinator]

Hijacking? We've barely mentioned Ron Paul in several pages. That train has already left the station.

And yes, I'm guilty.

Personally I prefer consumption taxes, not only because of the ease of enforcement and criminal prosecution, but because it encourages austerity. The problem is that we're not about to see a VAT replace the income tax; all the Progressives in DC are discussing it as an additional tax.

Those "pros" or "benefits" are what originally attracted me to the idea. it fixes the tax code shenanigans, streamlines the IRS, and might encourage people to save more--but it would also shift the tax burden to those who spend a higher percentage of their income--the poor. I don't like that. It just feels wrong to tax the little guy more than the one who can afford to save (as a percentage of total income). I don't want to punish the wealthy or successful and after some very serious consideration, I think it makes sense to have a flatter tax system, but we should try to tax the disposable income, not the money needed to live. Everyone's definition of disposable and their point of view may vary--and we can't very well make adjustments based on zip code--that's too complicated, and rife with potential political shenanigans, so we'll have to suffer with national averages.

That's my thought process anyway.

I recall from clips of Ben Stein's movie an Atheist (not Dawkins) talking joyfully about the beauty of a pointless, irrelevant existence.

Haven't seen it, but i don't want to leave the wrong impression. Say there isn't any mythical string puller, and we really are out here alone--does it have to be irrelevant? Isn't that just a less contrived type of relevance? Sure, that maybe a bit scary, you and I may have negligible effects on history, we may be just barely getting our feet wet in the grand endeavor that is humanity. But that's exciting not depressing. Humans have, in the last say 10k years-ish, come from beating rocks together to make sharper rocks, to sending probes out of the solar system, taking pictures of the first few moments of time and mapping not just the galaxy but the universe. it's incredible and we have a few billion years left on this planet before the sun eats it. what could we be capable of? I'm pretty psyched about it, even if I'll only ever get to see a tiny bit.

[jmervyn]

but it would also shift the tax burden to those who spend a higher percentage of their income--the poor. I don't like that. It just feels wrong to tax the little guy more than the one who can afford to save (as a percentage of total income).

Factually, none of the "eat the rich" policies being promoted under the Democrat class-warfare flag really tax the 'big guy' either. Inevitably the tax burden comes to rest on the middle class; there's not enough wealth in the honest "rich" to be garnered and there's far too many methods of avoiding for those who can afford them.

It literally enrages me when GOP types talk about Bill Gates in deferential or reverential terms. That evil little scum-sucker not only has dodged more taxes than Geithner and Buffett combined, not only earned his fortune using proven less-than-legitimate methods, NOT ONLY didn't give a red cent in charitable donations until Ted Turner humiliated him for being such a nasty miser, BUT his current "charity" endeavors are Soros-like in their manipulative intent. He uses his 'charity' to strong-arm the recipient to favor his business interests.

Everyone's definition of disposable and their point of view may vary--and we can't very well make adjustments based on zip code--that's too complicated, and rife with potential political shenanigans, so we'll have to suffer with national averages.

That's the same shortfall regarding use of gasoline VAT taxes; it would hit the trucking industry so hard that the result would be inflation. I think there are sufficient ways to avoid this impact, though, so it really <could> work if we had an interest in making it work. The truth is, there are far too many with an active interest in keeping the tax code as thoroughly corruptible as it is.

Humans have, in the last say 10k years-ish, come from beating rocks together to make sharper rocks, to sending probes out of the solar system, taking pictures of the first few moments of time and mapping not just the galaxy but the universe.

The insistence that it's all because we're so smart and that there's no dude in the sky has not been at the forefront of such results, though. In fact, it's been pointedly to the opposite.

it's incredible and we have a few billion years left on this planet before the sun eats it. what could we be capable of? I'm pretty psyched about it, even if I'll only ever get to see a tiny bit.

I suggest you read those Mark Steyn books I mentioned before you get your hopes up.

[Stevinator]

Factually, none of the "eat the rich" policies being promoted under the Democrat class-warfare flag really tax the 'big guy' either. Inevitably the tax burden comes to rest on the middle class; there's not enough wealth in the honest "rich" to be garnered and there's far too many methods of avoiding for those who can afford them.

It literally enrages me when GOP types talk about Bill Gates in deferential or reverential terms. That evil little scum-sucker not only has dodged more taxes than Geithner and Buffett combined, not only earned his fortune using proven less-than-legitimate methods, NOT ONLY didn't give a red cent in charitable donations until Ted Turner humiliated him for being such a nasty miser, BUT his current "charity" endeavors are Soros-like in their manipulative intent. He uses his 'charity' to strong-arm the recipient to favor his business interests.
That's the same shortfall regarding use of gasoline VAT taxes; it would hit the trucking industry so hard that the result would be inflation. I think there are sufficient ways to avoid this impact, though, so it really <could> work if we had an interest in making it work. The truth is, there are far too many with an active interest in keeping the tax code as thoroughly corruptible as it is.

All the more reason to keep up the buzz about true tax fairness--and how neither party really supports it.

The insistence that it's all because we're so smart and that there's no dude in the sky has not been at the forefront of such results, though. In fact, it's been pointedly to the opposite.

I already know i don't want to bite on that, not the triple negative, nor what i know you really meant...

I suggest you read those Mark Steyn books I mentioned before you get your hopes up.

Too depressing. i could barely stomach the review.

[SaroDarksbane]

Thought this was great. Soak the rich!

[vdzele]

Funny video.

If we trace all the origins of the debt, the sources, where did it come from - it all came from a bank. So all the debt should be paid back to banks and there is no mention in the video of a single banker. Trillions and trillions dollars of debt worldwide and no banker on the list?

We all owe to them and no banker on a list? I include and government debt towards private central banks.

Lets say if we accept their story that the actual debt came into existence when someone takes money from a deposit. So 50-100 trillion of debt means that someone deposited trillions. Where are those people with that amount of money in this video?

[jmervyn]

All the more reason to keep up the buzz about true tax fairness--and how neither party really supports it.

Why buzz when we should "sting"?

I already know i don't want to bite on that, not the triple negative, nor what i know you really meant...

Well, it's pretty simple; Puritan/Enlightenment Christianity is responsible for Western Civ's "5000 year leap", while Atheism is responsible for countless deaths and untold suffering. Simple, see?

Too depressing. i could barely stomach the review.

Steyn's side-splitting-ly hilarious; it's after you finish reading that you feel like slashing your wrists.

Lets say if we accept their story that the actual debt came into existence when someone takes money from a deposit. So 50-100 trillion of debt means that someone deposited trillions. Where are those people with that amount of money in this video?

Problem is, the conduct of your "usury lords" aren't the same as the principles of economic growth and compounding interest, yet the results are all apparently lumped into the same pot. Modern finance is what made such growth possible, even before we left the gold standard.

[vdzele]

Problem is, the conduct of your "usury lords" aren't the same as the principles of economic growth and compounding interest, yet the results are all apparently lumped into the same pot. Modern finance is what made such growth possible, even before we left the gold standard.

On the contrary. Modern finance is a scam, a ponzi scheme, a crime. It does not allow growth, it controls average people for the benefit of those who control the system. World would be much prosperous without its shackles. Elite never liked prosperous people and you will see that in near future. It never happened in the past but you might think today is different.

Compound interest has nothing to do with fractional reserve banking where they can lend 50-100 times more than they have. We see in many cases that countries get into huge debts in 5-10 years and compound interest has small deal in these cases.

[jmervyn]

Compound interest has nothing to do with fractional reserve banking where they can lend 50-100 times more than they have. We see in many cases that countries get into huge debts in 5-10 years and compound interest has small deal in these cases.

Point being, much of your material confuses the legitimate, beneficial actions of markets/compounding interest/economic growth with the admittedly malicious actions of "high financiers".

I suspect this is because in an odd sort of inverse way, it is unpleasant to recognize that the completely predictable and understandable actions of Soros, Corzine, Madoff, Geithner, Raines, Ken Lay, and all their ilk really <are> no different from hucksters fleecing rubes. People WANT to believe in fairness but at the same time "striking it rich". Money IS made through applying wealth or labor, rather than being a set number where if someone gets more pie than you do it is somehow "unfair".

It's simply far more efficient for those in your "lords" community to legally "steal" it from someone else. Such as the American taxpayer.

[jmervyn]

Callback to the Romney hate issue -
"I'd rather have a President with magic underwear than an Emperor with no clothes!"

[krischan]

Obama's critics aren't exactly dumb, there just aren't united well enough. It's almost funny to see how much mud-slinging is needed and how much damage the winner's reputation will have suffered before a counter-candidate is brought into position to oppose a president in the reelection. I think the pre-election procedure is a pretty dumb issue, an unnecessary weakening of the counter-candidate. Whoever will win the pre-election, Obama's campaign team will have plenty of ammunition against him, delivered by the enemy itself.

I guess you will have Obama for another 4 years.