I heard this on the Alex Jones show last week. I have always had great respect for Paul Harvey, and this audio program makes me believe more so. It is funny how he underlines the degradation of society to the level that it has grown. Harvey wrote this first in 1965, and updated it as many more of his predictions came true.
Monday, May 28, 2012
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
The richest one percent of Americans need to pay their fair share, this phrase has been often preached by President Obama. This phrase has often been applied to millionaire and billionaires, but can it apply to the commander-in-chief? In a recent speech to congress, the president included himself in his oft-heralded verbiage of the top one percent. Technically, like Warren Buffet, he paid less tax than his secretary, about 20.5%. Such an effective tax rate is shocking when comparing $789,674 as compared to secretary, Anita Decker’s $95,000 salary. Due to his income, the president should fall in a tax rate of about 35%, seems like someone is not paying his “fair share.”
Recently, the length of the United States’ tax code passed the complete works of William Shakespeare in volume. Not only did the tax code pass Shakespeare, it is now four times as long as the acclaimed poet’s life work. Why does tax code need to be so long and complicated? There are so many loopholes and rewards for a lack of productivity that it is appalling. Many of which just leech from the system and never provide actual value to it. There are some that do need the help, and could not do for themselves, due to a disability, that is a different case. Those handicapped individuals need and should receive some form of assistance. I take issue with those that have just become so lazy, and have learned to work the system so well that they do not really bring anything from the table; they have learned to live from the sweat off of someone else’s back.
I do not consider myself to be an Objectivist, but I do believe that Ayn Rand is on point on many aspects of economics. Value should be given for value, one should not expect to receive something if they have not worked for it. It is due to the belief I hold in exchange that I take issue with the current socialist redistribution of wealth that is occurring in America. It raises the question: If my hard work will be funding someone else, then why do I need to work so hard?
Many have stated that the tax rate needs to be so high, because the money will go to help the less fortunate. Well, a key point about such charity, is that if it is made compulsory, then it is no longer charity. In a recent edition of his ‘Texas Straight Talk’, Congressman Ron Paul Praised private charity. Paul makes the point that ‘One of the great fallacies of our time is that if government doesn’t do something, then no one will.’ I tend to agree with the congressman, and it is amazing what a human being will do for another when it is his own free choice; it is not the position of government to provide charity.
A flat tax rate of 12-19% would provide a reward for hard work and would be cause for less confusion come tax time. People would work much harder if they could keep more of what they work for. The point in working is to make money. If there is no reward, then I do not see a real point in working harder, like Rand has previously pointed out, it is why communism will always fail.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
UN's Agenda 21 has been a target of the US government for a long time:
"Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely
bring out many of the conspiracy-fixated groups and individuals in our society
such as the National Rifle Association, citizen militias and some members of
Congress. This segment of our society who fear ‘one-world government’ and a
UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would
be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined
‘the conspiracy’ by undertaking LA21. So, we call our processes something
else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth."
-Former Bill Clinton Advisor J. Gary Lawrence in his paper: "The Future of Local Agenda 21 in the New Millennium"
It's straight out of 1984: war is peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength. They call it something else just to push it was a populous to distracted to care. Think about it: UN 'Peacekeeping Troops', its an oxymoron. Obama's 'Rural Council' is another Agenda 21 wolf in sheep's clothing; if you don't believe me, check it out.