Powered by Blogger.

Thursday, October 30, 2008

The Presidential Oath of Office

Glenn Beck analyzes one of Obama's clips from 2001 and reveals the marxist philosphy in Obama's words.

Glenn Beck does a fabulous job in his commentary explaining the message behind Obama's words. I urge every American to do your homework. Understand the dangers that this type of thinking will have on our Constitution, our people, and our wonderful country. It does not matter what side of the aisle this line of thinking comes from, it is destructive, manipulative, and dangerous for the future of this nation.

Let me end with the oath that every President takes when he enters office. Read it, then ask yourself: How can a president faithfully execute his Office of President when the powers of that office are derived from a document he/she does not believe in? How can a president who wants to change a Constitution that he/she believes is flawed, protect that very Constitution? It is our Constitution that protects us as Americans. It is our Constitution that keeps us free from tyranny, opression, and slavery. It is our Constitution that grants us, THE PEOPLE, liberty. Whether you are Democrat or Republican, the one thing we should all fight together for is Liberty.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." - Presidential Oath of Office


  1. About your second quotation of Thomas Jefferson: I don't think that he had a crystal ball clear enough to see this far into the future. The unfortunate present-day fact of the matter is this; there are too many people who educated themselves in good faith that the fields they chose would provide them wages commensurate with the cost of living, only to find that, for some mysterious reason, their skills aren't worth enough to afford more than a poverty-level standard of living. This while high-profile pencil-pushers pocket the profits and more than the profits of selling out to overseas labor markets. Thus, the under- and middle classes have no choice but to run up credit to make ends meet while they try to believe what is told them by the powers that be: "Just keep working and you will be justly rewarded in time." Then those same powers that be turn around and foreclose on the workers, telling them that time has run out and it's no one's fault but their own for not living within their means.

    If I'd lived within my means over the last eight years, I'd be dead of a drive-by shooting while trying to find enough change in the street to buy kerosene for the cheapest possible space heater to stave off death by hypothermia.

    What say you?

  2. About your Benjamin Franklin quote; Once again, his words were said in a context that could not imagine our present day, could not conceive of 9/11.

    I'm curious, in light of the quotes you choose. . .what think you of The Patriot Act, and how it came to be popularly accepted as a necessary measure to ensure our domestic security?

  3. The Constitution has been amended, in the best interests of the American public to the best of our government's ability to reach a consensus on how those interests are defined, a total of 27 times over the last 217 years. How does a feeling that the document continues to need more work disqualify someone for the presidency?

  4. Hi Katie!

    I appreciate your questions/comments. I will answer them all but I will start with your first post. (I just got home from a long day of work so I will do my best to answer the others tomorrow.)

    Thomas Jefferson was indeed very intellegent. He warned of banking institutions and the ideas of collectivism, as did many of the founding fathers. Unfortunately, today, the America we know does not resemble much of the Republic that was established so long ago. It is very hard for people to seperate themselves from the current system to peer into the past and understand the ideas of individualism that our framers fought so hard for.

    Many ideologies are born of collectivism. (I have a post on The Philosophy of Rule where I explain the essence of collectivism.) Although, "in theory" this sounds like a great thing, it is the very opposite of the word "fairness."

    The popular movement in government today, especially on the liberal left, is collectivism. I am sure you have heard many people claim that Obama is a Marxist, mostly because his ideas and policies resemble those of Karl Marx. This idea of spreading the wealth around, giving up wealth for the good of society, giving up rights for the good of the group - these are all Marxist principles and embody the ideas of collectivism.

    Our country was born on the ideas of individualism. Each person is equal, has the same opportunity to succeed, and can through hard work and perseverence. This was the American Dream, and why so many flocked to our country while we were still young as a country. Through hard work, sweat, and tears, you could create a better life for yourself and your family. However, this was not an "American Promise." It was the dream - which means, not everyone was successful.

    Individualists also believe that the rights of people were inherent (see Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights). That every individual had rights, and that government was established NOT to grant those rights (as collectivists believe), but to SECURE rights of individuals and protect those rights. Groups of people did not have the right to take away rights of the individual - which would be democratic of course, but a form of collectivism. (Interesting to note our founding fathers also spoke disparagingly of democracies.)

    Groups, states, and especially federal government did not have the right to do anything to anyone that an individual could not do to another individual. This includes a poor man stealing from a rich man. It is stealing...whether from secrecy or by force of arms. Or vice versa, rich cannot steal from poor (see bailouts).

    Individualism is an amazing concept. When the people truly have the power, and government obeys it's constitutional duties, everyone prospers. Today, sadly, we have become a collectivist society. Social programs, central planning, large government who spend out of control, media that promotes racial and class tensions - this is the framework for collectivism.

    Do not be so naive to believe that we should become more socialistic. It is our socialistic programs that have created this mess we are in.

    The programs the government has interfered with the most over the last 50+ years have become a disaster. Healthcare and education have both seen an increase in cost and a decline in service. Social security has been mismanaged as has medicaid and medicare. Welfare, although maybe good intentioned, has created more poverty, less incentive to work, and has become part of the problem in the whole illegal alien issue. Instead of the American Dream, we now offer welfare and free healthcare paid for by those who work, which, in turn, creates more racial tensions.

    You are making the mistake of blaming your current situation or the situation of those you know on the fact that The Constitution was wrong and that the free market approach and capitalism have failed. Your error comes from the fact that Government has been ignoring the constitution for decades, and the free market system and capitalism has been replaced by central planning and market manipulation. In both cases, you are seeing a collectivist form of government, not an individualistic one. So you are essentially arguing that more socialism is a better answer than the socialism that has already screwed up our country.

    My answer, every time, is Individualism. Personal liberty and accountability. Less government and free market. If this was really a constitutional republic, you would not be struggling like you claim you are. Not saying you are not, but your post was well written - you obviously are intelligent.

    I urge you to use that intelligence when looking at the current situation of this country. Is it really the Constitution that needs changing???...or maybe just the unconstitutional system that has corrupted the purpose of the constitution, robbed Americans of their wealth, and created an atmosphere of hopelessness where people feel like they have to rely on government.

  5. No, Thomas Jefferson did not have a crystal ball, but he was VERY aware of the competing ideologies in the world. They had been fighting a war against tyranny (another form of collectivism) and were not naive to the other forms of government that existed around the world. Time can change, but the corruption of government is almost inevitable because of the attraction of power. This is why they created the smallest, least powerful government the world had ever seen. They knew the danger, and wrote extensively about it.

    Just a suggestion, but you should read the writings of the founding fathers. You might just begin to develop a better opinion, not only of their ideas, but of their intuitiveness.

    Hope you keep reading...really appreciate your comments. I'll write more tomorrow.

  6. You are right; Government today is not like it was in the late 1700's; Back then, the Constitution defended slavery. It had to be amended to allow for women to be treated as equals, rather than as property. It was a government that totally ignored the native people who were brutally displaced and worse for the huge influx of British and European immigrants. So do not project naivete upon me while you blithely assert that the founding fathers built this country on the idea, among others, that all people are equal. Their definition of equality was virtually Neanderthal. They came here to escape persecution for their beliefs, and then immediately began perpetrating their own persecutions against untold numbers of others, many of whom were already here and in their way, and many more of whom came to pursue the dream and were met with disparagement and disdain at best.

    As for my struggles, you show your naivete yet again to assert that my intellect has anything to do with my ability to succeed in achieving the American Dream. If you care to know the jist of my personal story, it goes like this; I was manipulated into choosing a vocational program, (cosmetology,) at 15 years old, got my first job at 18, and it had a starting pay of $8/hour. Not bad in 1989. Today, the starting wage for that same work is, (drumroll please. . .) $10/hour! And that's with qualifying experience. If your new to the field, it's still $8. Maximum wage is $12/hour. . .about the same as it was 20 years ago. Meanwhile, the cost of everything has gone up by no less than 50% and by as much as 400% in the last 30 years alone.

    I truly do not begrudge anyone fair enjoyment of their success. If I was making a multi-million dollar yearly income, I'd be interested in some drastic improvements to my current standard of living. And it would be great if we could shrink the government to more reasonable proportions, but this is a goal to be attained through step-by-step changes, and can only begin when there is a more widely-spread social ethic that recognizes the appalling standard that has come to define the American Dream, which allows people in power to justify living like kings while they cry that they can't afford their vacations if they have to pay the same taxes as the rest of us, so the rest of us have to pay more taxes.

    So if you want to give me a reading list, I'd be glad to peruse it. But I have been to college and I have been an avid reader of all manner of literature since I was 10 years old. I have probably read one or two of the books you might suggest. None of them will convince me that Republicans today have the answer to our country's ills. Here's what would; when big business Republican cronies stop sending jobs overseas and investing their profits because of said in low-taxation high-interest overseas banks, rather than keeping and investing their money here in the U.S. and in the people who pay their wages by working at minimum wage jobs that don't pay enough to afford health care or heat in the winter because over a third of that income gets taken out of hand in taxes, when these guys stop getting protection and encouragement for these practices from their political buddies in trade for votes, if they could maybe even just stop trying to criticize Democrats for playing by the rules that Republican administrations have created and defined again and again, . . .you know, then maybe I might be able to see my way clear to start to see things your way.

  7. Oh, and by the way. . .

    You "urge (me) to use that intelligence when looking at the current situation of this country,". . . What do you think I'm using?

    I can tell you what I'm NOT using. I'm not using any biases with which my urban public high school social studies education tried to program me. I'm not even using the more well-rounded college civics education, though that did open my eyes.

    Mainly, I'm just using my eyes. They are wide open and can see the difference between social responsibility and socialism, and the frightening similarity between individualism and oligarchy.

  8. American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition - Cite This Source - Share This

    A view that stresses the importance and worth of each person. In economics, it is the doctrine that individuals best serve the public interest by pursuing their own self-interest. For example, the businessman who expands his company to increase his profits also creates jobs for many people and thereby serves the public interest. (See laissez-faire.)

    Yeah, this would be great. . .if people actually DID this. The fact is, in large part, THEY DON'T. The average multimillionaire business owner might create jobs, but they try to create as few of them as possible so that they don't have to pay the overhead new jobs create. Since they are, by definition, only pursuing their self-interests, you have to know that the average "individualist" defines his self-interest in how much money he can accumulate and how little he can get away with spending. He doesn't have to care about creating jobs, so he just doesn't.

    American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
    in·di·vid·u·al·ism (ĭn'də-vĭj'ōō-ə-lĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key

    1. Belief in the primary importance of the individual and in the virtues of self-reliance and personal independence.
    2. Acts or an act based on this belief.
    3. A doctrine advocating freedom from government regulation in the pursuit of a person's economic goals.
    4. A doctrine holding that the interests of the individual should take precedence over the interests of the state or social group.
    5. The quality of being an individual; individuality.
    6. An individual characteristic; a quirk.
    1. A doctrine advocating freedom from government regulation in the pursuit of a person's economic goals.
    2. A doctrine holding that the interests of the individual should take precedence over the interests of the state or social group.
    3. The quality of being an individual; individuality.
    4. An individual characteristic; a quirk.
    1. The quality of being an individual; individuality.
    2. An individual characteristic; a quirk.

    Definitions 1-3 and 1-4 are more like what you get from individualism in a market touted to be "free". In fact, you are seeing exactly why individualism cannot work every time you check the stock market. . .well, unless you want an oligarchy, that is.

  9. Hey Katie,

    I've worked 80+ hours/week over the last couple months, so I'm sorry I'm not getting back to you quicker. I see you have been filling up my comments section, so I just want you to know I do appreciate you taking the time to post =)

    So you seem angry. Which isn't always bad. I get angry too. However, if you allow anger to interfere with thinking or dictate an argument, you will not be as effective.

    I have to start with some previous postings you made and work my way down...otherwise I'll lose my train of thought ;)

    Benjamin Franklin and The Patriot Act:

    I realize you have mostly disdain for our founding fathers, but I think you underestimate them. Although weapons and technology have changed, warfare has not. It is just as vicious and scary as it was in the 1700's. There were world powers, threats and terrorists, and although the world landscape has changed, the same ideas that existed then exist now. Yet, despite the threat from foreign powers and domestic powers, they were very adamant that freedom should be essential. I DO NOT support, endorse, or tolerate any legislation that takes away rights from Americans, and therefore, DO NOT agree with The Patriot Act. I think it was poor legislation that was unnecessary and hastily thrust through Congress by perpetuating fear. What happened in this country was tragic for sure, but for the government to overstep their bounds to "keep America safe" is not acceptable and wholly unconstitutional. Hence the Benjamin Franklin quote. All Americans should be nervous when government takes away rights for safety. As for it being popular, I don't know if it was all that popular with Americans - although the government did use fear and the standard "patriotism" lines to sway enough people...

    Ok...that said, let's move on.

    The Constitution:
    "The Constitution has been amended, in the best interests of the American public to the best of our government's ability to reach a consensus on how those interests are defined, a total of 27 times over the last 217 years. How does a feeling that the document continues to need more work disqualify someone for the presidency?" (Katie)

    My first problem with your statement is the part where you say it has been amended "in the best interests of the American public to the best of our government's ability." The Federal Government was never supposed to do anything in the best interest of the public (although the general welfare of the republic is often cited) to the best of their ability. The federal government does not amend the Constitution, the states do. The states have the right to affirm amendments based on the will of the republic (or public). So in reality, the individuals that make up each state have a say through their representatives to make changes. Now this has been necessary over time. You bring up some very good examples. Women's and minority right's to vote. However, you are wrong to assume the founding father's were "neanderthals." You are using social norms from today to justify your argument that the Constitution is flawed. Social norms from that time period may not be fair to you now, and I would agree with you, but it is a poor argument against the Constitution or the framers. Roles of men and women were viewed differently at the time, as society was different. I am not arguing that it makes it right, but I do not think it serves as a good argument in respect to the ideas of individualism and small, restricted government. Hypothetically, let's say they wrote in that women had the right to vote and minorities were equal - would that change your mind about whether socialism is a good idea?

    As for respect to color. I honestly do not see color. I respect people for how they think, work, and treat others. Again, to argue that the Constitution needed to be amended because it failed to recognize minorities as equal, I would agree with you. I also think the way the native americans were treated was horrible. I am part native american so you do not need to remind me of that =) But in the same respect, you are using the social norm argument to say the founding fathers failed.

    Here's why I would disagree. The beauty of the Constitution is that the framers allowed for it to be changed! They were not as naive as you claim I am =) They never claimed that it was perfect in it's entirety, but they did their best to make it so, ESPECIALLY in regards to government powers. They gave most of the power to the states and guaranteed each state would be a republic. In allowing for it to be changed, they did so under the assumption that the federal government would not rewrite it to fit their needs or wants. It was an opening for the PEOPLE of this country to change it. And we have, as you noted 27 times, most for the good, some for the bad. Yet, I am sure they never imagined that the people of this country would want to decrease freedom in favor of bigger government...They did place constraints on government so that the government could not twist, manipulate, and rewrite the constitution in order to grant more rights to themselves over the people. They insured that the people would always have the power - and sadly, we have lost almost all of it.

    Big Government and Bigger Corporations:

    Can't agree with you more. Your disastisfaction with the rich and powerful is not misplaced, but I would assert that it is a problem with the system, not with the Constitution. I will restate my previous idea that we are no longer operating on Constitutional or individualistic principles. Legislation has been passed to allow monopolies to be created in our economic system to allow concentration of power - some corporations, banks and media outlets. (founding fathers warned of this type of control because it would negatively effect the citizens) Government is persuaded by big business and corruption can be seen on both sides of the aisle. The problem with the nation is that it is so divided. Each side only sees the ills of the other party which means they are only seeing one side of the problem. A nation divided is easier to control, which is really one of my main goals of this website; I want to show that the problem is both parties - and that division is fueled by both government and media. Imagine what would happen if both sides came together and fought for freedom!!

    Oligarchy yes. The power is controlled by the few - and at the expense of the citizens. We are being manipulated and taxed to death, mostly to pay for those who control the power. Democrats blame Republicans and Republicans blame Democrats. The truth is, they are both leading us down the same path. It is an ideological war with only the few on either side standing up for the people.

    I am guessing you are lashing out because I am a conservative. However, I do not support Bush, and I am not voting for McCain. I DO believe in Constitutional government, and AM a conservative which are both TRADITIONALLY republican ideals.

    I also believe you should be angry at our current economic and political system. I am too! I still maintain that your anger is misplaced though. The current system is in shambles BECAUSE we have strayed so far from Constitutional government. The economy is in trouble not just because of Republicans but Democrats as well (see Community Reinvestment Act). Both sides are to blame. It is NOT, however, the fault of our Constitution or the men who wrote it. We already live under a socialistic system. Socialism has failed everywhere it has been introduced and is one of the biggest problems in our current economy/government. The Utopian society, that Marx talked about, has never come to pass. Socialists blame Capitalism, but the truth is, when you give government that much power, the people are served last. Do you really believe that if we tax the rich more (don't quote me on this but they already pay 75% of the federal income tax with 40% of Americans paying none) that money will find its way into the poor's hands? Government is corrupt already with most politicians in the pockets of big business. They may enact legislation that will create more social programs, but Americans will pay for it and government will decide how the money is best used. Do you really trust government that much? What have they done that you would put so much faith in it?

    As for your assertion that I am naive. I do not blindly vote for a member of my party. I research every candidate. I research issues and legislation. I believe government needs reform not "change." I imagine you are disatisfied with republicans because the past 8 years have been awful. I agree. You probably don't want to see a continuation of that. I agree. I'm guessing that you are voting for Obama because of this. I, however, do not believe that the "change" Obama is preaching will have anything but negative effects on this country. His policies and the legislation that he wants to pass is so alarming that every American should be afraid. I'm guessing that you are voting for him because you honestly are struggling. I believe it will be no different under an Obama administration. In fact, I would go so far as to say that 4 years from now, you will be no better off, or worse off than you are now...lol, as will I.

    You have every right to be angry with Republican leaders (mostly of the neo-conservative kind). But you should be just as angry with the Democrat leaders (mostly of the "progressive" variety). They are both dangerous and have no concern for the citizens of this country.

    As for your economic situation...I am truly sorry you are struggling. I've been there. I've lived out of my car and relied on friends for shower, laundry, and food. It's not easy but I want to encourage you to keep your head up. You seem confident, and my remark to your intelligence was not meant to be derogatory. Maybe you were manipulated into your profession, but it doesn't mean you have to stay there. You also said you went to college, so I imagine you do have other choices. Just because I don't know you doesn't make me naive. I do understand what it is like to be on the other(lower) side of the "middle class." I still think if you are intelligent and have the drive to succeed you can. It doesn't mean it is going to be easy.

    I'm going to stop here for now. I'm sure you will respond in turn. I am really glad you are passionate about what you are writing - I don't necessarily agree with everything you say, but I do look forward to your comments.
    I wish you the best, have a great evening!
    P.S. I lol'd at your definitions for individualism. I appreciate you breaking out the dictionary. If you are serious about a reading list I will provide, contact me at the site e-mail. Thanks!

  10. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5BRF4juyT0&eurl=http://www.ronpaulforpresident2008.com/news/

    pretty good video that I ran across today - it's like 10 minutes so watch if you want

  11. Ahhh. . .Travis, I cannot tell you how pleased I am that you want to join this correspondence. I finally get to learn things I don't already know from someone who knows how to communicate effectively. While I have much to say and little time to say it, I want to ask you a very important question, and though I'll be following with replies to your most recent comments, know that this is not in any way rhetorical; this is your blog, and I'm not sure you intended it to become a debate forum. Do you really want to engage this with me, or are you just humoring me? I don't want to muck up your spot with unintended purposes.

    That said, onward I go.

    First, I want you to know that I do NOT, in fact, have disdain for our founding fathers. I've been misunderstood rather gravely here. You seem to have bundled my opinion of your assertion that Obama is anti-Constitution and my admittedly inflamed questioning of your position on the Patriot Act. I'm pleased to see that we agree that the Patriot Act was a failure before it was even implemented, and for all the reasons you give. However, the result seems to be that you didn't actually address my question about Obama's qualifications as President where it concerns his opinion of the Constitution and how it works, (or doesn't work, as the case may be,) to protect We The People from unethical governmental practices. And so my question on that topic still stands; How does Obama's opinion of the Constitution and how it may be updated disqualify him as a candidate?

    Let me here also assert that you are right to say that the same ideas about homeland security existed then as do now. I still say that you are losing sight of the fact that many more ideas, about h.s. and many other issues, exist now that did not exist then. I mean, we're talking about a fledgling government that wrote a document that was meant to establish a more perfect union that was only formed by 17(?) states and closing in on 4 million people at the time that the Constitution was first ratified. It allowed amazingly well for the fact that those stats would grow, but nonetheless was written by mere humans, who were in no way able to do more than live in the present, no matter how much forethought they tried to use.

    Let me further correct your interpretation of my post. I do not think the founding fathers were neanderthals. I said that their concept of equality was virtually neanderthal, a smidge of hyperbole mixed with a bit of over-emotion at the unfair vilification of Obama based on his comments about the Constitution. I stand by it, too. We are, after all, still talking about people who were willing that women should be treated as chatel, Africans should be treated as trained beasts of burden, and that natives should be killed for not giving way. I don't revisit this because I think today's social norms can fairly be applied to the past's standards. I revisit it because you seem to still assert that their standards can be fairly applied to the present day, while you go on to maintain that the Constitution was designed to change with the times. I'm so confused by this that I can only ask you again to consider my question. (See last lines of second paragraph.)

    As I read and reread your post as part of my process of writing this reply, I start to realize that part of my confusion comes from quite a lot of misunderstanding and misinterpretation of what I wrote on your part. I do not intend that you should have the idea that I think the Constitution is flawed, per se. I only mean to remind you that the Constitution is a work in progress, and to discount a presidential candidate for wanting to see that progress continue doesn't make sense to me. You go on in great detail to assert that the framers allowed for this, to their credit and our benefit, yet seem to contradict yourself when it comes to your opinion of present day efforts to continue that work. You ask whether I want to put so much trust in the government. My impression was that the state congresspeople are supposed to be basing their legislative decisions on what we the people want, and that amendments and bills are supposed to be formed and passed and ratified based on our votes. Who, then, am I supposed to trust if not my representatives to our government to keep it one that is of the people, by the people, and for the people?

    Which brings me to why I stand where I stand and why I voted the way I did. You are absolutely right; the republican neo-conservatives that have run this country into the ground broke trust with all of us in every conceivable way. The U.S. Constitution is not a difficult document to interpret, and the large majority of the 300 million people who reside under it's protection have been convinced otherwise. It's gone far beyond placing blame. It's just time to fix it. It's time to tell people the truth, and keep it simple. The way the truth has been twisted to suit the whims of the powerful at the expense of the rest of us is atrocious. And I agree that Ron Paul is a fine candidate and holds ideals that would be fine if he could implement them. But the facts of the matter at this moment in time deem that Ron Paul isn't really an option. It isn't true just because the media are biased in favor of the left or the right. It's true because government has gotten so out of control that the third party option just isn't one with which the mass mind of the general population can cope. That said, I can admit nothing other than being at a total loss for how to effectively fix that; 300 million people is a hell of a lot to represent by the standard the founding fathers set.

    :-) You noticed I'm angry. Thank you for noticing and being solicitous after it. You are right, and I'll even admit that I'm a little mad at you. This is not because you are conservative. It's because you make yourself part of the problem with the way elections are influenced. You've decorated your site with negative propoganda that in one particular case is so offensive it can hardly be tolerated, and I'm surprised you haven't had any other comment on it. I refer to the Nazi poster with Obama's face superimposed. SERIOUSLY!!! Free speech is all well and good, but when you use that right to go so far over the top to try to frighten people away from their choices, you are stooping to the level of the same neo-conservatives and corrupted liberals you would denounce.

    I think that's all I can say for now. There's so much you posted that I know I didn't address. I hope you can continue to show patience. I also work very long hours, but to my advantage, I'm in the position of being able to control my schedule a bit more than the average person can. :-)

    Looking forward to hearing more from you,

  12. Lol! Rereading my latest post really makes me wish I could go back and edit it more. There are at least two places where I don't make myself as clear as I'd like. Bear with me.

    Where I wrote, "I don't revisit this because I believe that today's social norms can fairly be applied to the past's standards, " please add, "because I really don't."

    And where I wrote, "This is not because you are conservative," please allow me to elaborate thus; I have understood for a long time that neo-conservatives have made a mockery of the original meanings and intentions behind political conservativism. (Yes, I see by my auto-spell-and-grammar check that I've just made up a word. Hmmm. . .) If you are not neo-conservative, than please do not take my adamant opposition personally. Though, I've read some of your other posts and based on them I wouldn't have any way of distinguishing a noticeable difference. This is not helped, of course, by the contention by neo-conservatives that they aren't rabidly corrupt.

    And now, my duties call. Until Tomorrow,

  13. Ok, (lol,) I know you told me not to quote you on this but You Know I Have To!

    (don't quote me on this but they already pay 75% of the federal income tax with 40% of Americans paying none)

    Listen, this assertion makes very little sense, unless you qualify "rich" as anyone making enough of an income to be taxed, and you recognize that the 40% of Americans paying no taxes are not paying them because they are children, unemployed, not making enough money to be taxed, or are over 100 years old. rotflmao!

    Seriously, when I was making a paycheck, and for most of the Bush administrations rule of our land, 40% of my paychecks were withheld, NOT including my health insurance premiums, and it still wasn't enough. We'd fill out our 1040 at the end of the year and STILL OWE THE FEDS NO LESS THAN A GRAND!!! that was on a joint income of between 40 and 50k. We didn't start getting refunds again until after we had our baby.

    So I'd really like to know your source on those stats, because I think you've been lied to terribly.

    Enjoy election night! :-)

  14. Ok, stats on income taxes. I'll provide a chart and some links.

    Percentiles Ranked by AGI
    AGI Threshold on Percentiles
    Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid

    Top 1%

    Top 5%

    Top 10%

    Top 25%

    Top 50%

    Bottom 50%

    Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
    Source: Internal Revenue Service


    Above is a good article explaining the income tax burden under the bush tax cuts. I think you might be surprised at what you find.


    This is an article from The Wall Street Journal.

    Anyway, I said 75% - really, top 10% of this nations wealthy carry a little more than 70% of the tax burden.

    And you enjoy the election also!

  15. http://www.cbpp.org/814inc.htm

    . . .heehee. . . :-) OK. It took me about 2 minutes to find the above link, that tends to lend itself a little more credibility. WSJ is bound to show stats skewed in it's own favor. I don't know anything about The American, but I'm gonna take a stab in the dark and call it biased as well. Whereas my link give info from. . .wait for it. . .The Congressional Budget Office. The stats they give don't exactly corroborate the findings of the WJS, you'll find.

    I could take about half an hour and inundate you with more stats, if you like. ;-)


  16. http://www.askquestions.org/articles/taxes/

    I noticed after the fact that my first source was a little out of date. This one is somewhat more current, and talks about the things your sources don't; the disparity between "income" and "wealth," the little-known facts about how different kinds of income are taxed at different rates, and most importantly, fraud and cronyism that is still just as rampant as ever it was. The combination of these factors goes quite a way toward explaining how somehow people like me, who've never earned more than 26k in one year of my working life, could possibly only be paying less than 3% of all tax revenue collected in the U.S., while we consistently see no less than 35% of our individual incomes withheld by the federal government.



Comments and Discussion:

Total Pageviews

G. Edward Griffin: A World Without Cancer

  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP