Christmas 2010

Tax fix

I believe one of the ways to solve our economic problems in short it is to diminish the voice of the non-employed and students.  Voting should be a right not a privilege of those who are productive members of society.  Currently anyone over the age of 18 has he ability to vote.  This means that if someone is eligible to vote and not working either because they're a student or they are on unemployment or welfare has the capacity to influence the direction of our country.  Not only that but it creates a portion of society that influences our government and garners promises and support for that group.  As we see in government today the Liberals cater to this group.  If this group had no voice then there would be no social programs.  If there were still no social programs than that group would cease to exist at least to the point where the government is involved.  This would force people into the workplace and reduce the unemployment rate.  Now of course there would still be people unemployed, and there would still be students.  I believe it was Pres. Roosevelt who instituted most of our social programs for the needy.  All this did was in enlarge the group to what you see today.  Prior to that when a person was in need they went to their family for help.  If they had no family they went to their local church for help.  The government has tried to make the family and the church ineffectual ever since.  When I say the government I mean the progressive Liberal agenda.  See this agenda isn't really about helping people it's about control.  The larger they can make the group of dependents the more powerful they become.  It's really that simple!

What would I do?

First, change the voting requirements.  Make it so a person can't vote until a person has paid taxes for over 60 consecutive months.  Then and only then will they know what it's like to have their money taken from them by the government.  Of course many people will cry foul and say it's a constitutional right to vote and that it should not be hindered in any form.  They would also say that it's not fair that a certain segment of society in history to different.  I would submit to you that it's not fair that any individual or group of people is treated any different.  But yet that is what you have today.  Individuals like myself who have worked all their life and paid taxes all her life to fund social programs for a group of people who don't need to exist.  Take away the programs and you take away the group.  Subsequently you would have a larger pool of productive members of society and would be able to dismantle the overcomplicated much too large government  we see today.  It is unfair that I am 49 years old and when I go into a store I see an able bodied 25-year-old using food stamps.  Yet I have been struggling with a bad back my entire life.

Secondly, I would institute a flat tax.  It has been proven time and time again that a flat tax would pump much more money into the state and federal coffers.  According to Freedomworks.org Americans are paying the highest taxes in the nation's history.  The current complex tax system includes several inequities.  It penalizes married couples by making them pay higher taxes than single individuals.  And many Americans face a death tax that claims a significant portion of their estate after they die.  Late Noble Prize winning economist Milton Friedman first proposed a flat tax in 1962.  Nearly thirty years later, the idea gained national prominence when FreedomWorks Chairman Dick Armey introduced a flat tax proposal on the House floor.  He pledged  that a simple flat tax would allow Americans to “file their taxes on a form the size of a postcard.” 

Unfortunately, the Armey flat tax failed to pass Congress. To this day, we are still stuck with one of the most comlicated tax codes in the world.  Replacing the current messy tax code with a flat rate tax would be a huge improvement.  Since the early 1990’s, the flat tax revolution has spread across the world.  Currently,25 nations have adopted a single-rate flat tax system.  Most of these nations have tax rates below 20 percent. This month, Romania’s Senate just approved a proposal to lower their popular flat tax from 16 to10 percent. 
After implementing a flat tax, nearly all of these foreign nations have experienced economic growth and lower unemployment rates.  Between 2001 and 2004, The Hoover Institute found that tax revenue actually rose by 79.7 percent. Even a New York Times headline read “Russia Imposes Flat Tax on Income, and Its Coffers Swell.”  When people find their taxes to be low and sensible, they are willing to produce and invest more.  So why hasn’t the United States joined the flat tax revolution? Powerful special interest groups have blocked any efforts to improve the tax code.

According to Mike Pence, our current tax code has “special preferences and tax loopholes that Congress and an army of lobbyists have built into the tax code over time.  These fuel special interests and generally benefit one person, business or industry over another.” No wonder so many special interest groups are hostile to a flat tax. It would actually treat people equally.

Just imagine filling out your tax forms in five minutes with a flat tax.  According to the IRS, the average American taxpayer spends 26.5 hours preparing and sending in their taxes. Even IRS commissioner Douglas Shulman admits that he uses a tax preparer to file his own taxes, “I've used one for years.  I find it convenient.  I find the tax code complex so I use a preparer.”  Over a day of valuable time is lost each year that taxpayers could have spent being productive, spending time with family and friends or any way that they choose.  

Just my two cents,
Doug

THE GUN IS CIVILIZATION

Subject: 'THE GUN IS CIVILIZATION"




THIS IS THE BEST WORDED PRO-GUN ARGUMENT I HAVE EVER READ.
Very good article, of course from a Marine !!!!
   
 "The Gun Is Civilization"

      Interesting take and one you don't hear much. . . . . .

      As the Supreme Court hears arguments for and against the Chicago , IL Gun Ban,
I offer you another stellar example of a letter (written by a Marine),  that places the proper perspective on what a gun means to a civilized society.

      Read this eloquent and profound letter and pay close attention to the last paragraph of the letter....

          "The Gun Is Civilization" by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

      Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.
      If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force.
      Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

      In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion.
      Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

      When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force.
      You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

      The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

      There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations.
      These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job.
       That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

        People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

        Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury.
        This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

         People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst.
         The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

          The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter.
          It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

          When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone.
          The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.
           It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

            By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)

My aching back

Well its been sometime since I posted a new article here, but to be honest I'm frustrated with my back.  it doesn't seem to be getting any better.  I can't really do anything physical because I have to be careful.  I feel like an old man.  Pretty soon I'm going to need one of those little boxes to remind me what day I take pills on.but the good thing is I bought a Web camera and I chatted with Daniel last night while he was at the college using Skype.  I liked that I could see him and he can see me.  It's real cool.  It really makes it nice for her family that live far away.  Well I have some errands to run today so I better get cracking.  Talk to you later bye.