The “fiscal cliff” discussion is hitting a peak at this point with both sides in Washington attempting to sell their “solution” to the public in hopes of gaining support. At this point, I’m pessimistic since we’re heading into December soon and Christmas cookies will cause clouded judgment.

Report from the Washington Post:

Private talks between President Obama and top congressional leaders in search of a deal to avoid the year-end “fiscal cliff” are accelerating, even as the White House announced a new public campaign Tuesday to ramp up pressure on Republicans to extend tax cuts for the middle class.

Obama will engage in a full-fledged effort this week to force Republicans to agree to freeze tax rates for most Americans while allowing rates to rise on the wealthy, officials said. Events include a White House meeting with more than a dozen small-business owners on Tuesday, another White House session Wednesday with wealthy supporters who would be affected by an increase in taxes, a meeting with big-business executives Wednesday and a trip to a toy-manufacturing company in Pennsylvania on Friday.

Obama telephoned House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) over the weekend, a sign that high-level negotiations are advancing with only weeks to go before an automatic series of spending cuts and tax hikes starts to hit nearly every American.

Boehner, meanwhile, has set up a meeting between top Republicans and Erskine Bowles, a chief of staff in the Bill Clinton administration who also has close ties to Obama’s White House.

Ahead of the Wednesday meeting, GOP aides noted that Bowles offered a debt-reduction plan last fall in line with Republican principles. That plan called for $800 billion in fresh revenue through an overhaul of the tax code and significant spending cuts, including major changes to Medicare and other federal health programs.

Exit question: If both sides agree on a “deal”, who gets screwed?


  1. As elected AMERICANS, the President of the United States, the Congress and the Senate must reach an agreement to prevent the Fiscal Cliff. The agreement MUST NOT BE OF REPUBLICANS OR DEMOCRATS but of AMERICAN CITIZENS who want to protect this GREAT NATION from financial destruction. Those citizens who make over 250,000 dollars per year must pay 30% in income taxes to allow the middle class and small businesses to pay less to bring down the deficit. There needs to be cuts in the spending that does not directly hurt the poor citizens, middle class citizens, the SENIOR CITIZENS and OUR MILITARY PERSONEL from putting good food on the table, good clothes on their backs and a good roof over their heads

        • I think i mentioned this a long time ago – different thread. We haven’t had an approved budget for three years. Congress shoots darts and BO spends what he want’s to spend. If a particular ceiling is reached he gets the MSM to back him with his logic for that one line item. If that doesn’t work, he tells Bernanke to print some more funny money and the Debt ceiling slope goes a little more positive and we will go to 21 TetraBucks faster & before 2016.

          In the end for the cuts expiring at the EOY – BO / MSM / Dems will put Pubs in such a bad light that the Bush cuts will remain EXCEPT for Taxpayers making >$250K, that will go up to 39.5%. It won’t hardly touch the delta between tax income and budget but small biz will continue to fold / big biz will continue to lay off & no R&D invest / and those investors that have $$ will continue to invest off shore and even more may pick up their sticks and find an off shore to play in.

          • We haven’t had a budget but we do have a debt limit codified in law. That’s the reason for all of the hullabaloo. I don’t think most people understand what the “Fiscal Cliff” actually is.

            It doesn’t matter if we have bills that say we’ll spend $x on whatever. The law says the government can’t borrow the money to pay it, until a new law is passed to raise the debt limit. The government won’t be able to write the checks. It doesn’t matter what BO does, he can’t spend any money until the limit is raised.

            Unless they mint a $1T coin, but that’s a different story.

    • David R Smith —

      Let me get this straight. In school we were taught that the better job we do, the better grade is rewarded. And if we did poorly, we got a low grade as penalty for our lack of performance.

      Now, as adults, this is to be REVERSED?!

      If we do a good job — making 250K — we are not to be rewarded (such as lower taxes since still the amount would be more than the ones producing less), but are to be PENALIZED by more taxation?

      And if do not produce at all, we are not to be penalized for our laziness, but be REWARDED for it (welfare)?

      Since you advocate this idiocy, why not have our schools apply it so we don’t get confused when we grow up — if you are a Success you get Penalized, if you are a Failure you get Rewarded!

        • I’m lost here, please explain. Okay the rich are in the higher ta bracket but they also have a lot more loopholes. Taxing isn’t the problem, it’s spending and not investing.

            • Still a lot of paper work but much better than what we have today. I don’t like the idea of the companies being the tax collectors. Look at the fraud in just sales tax. What % actually get back to the government. Should be something where the government collects the tax. Sorry I have no ideas but I think the easrly taxes were on tariffs in shipping.

            • Billy – I’m not staying up with you. A flat 9% FIT on everyone who has + number on line 37. Company’s 10K shows a net profit line, before the gimmes, and pays 9% tax, and except for certain internet crooks, a flat 2% is added on just like city, county, state taxes get added on.

              You are so correct about our revenue prior to 1913 was our tariffs. But they were set so high, not to levy imports – their original, but they actually kept imports out so US manufacturers could keep prices high and enjoy windfall profits. So the 16th Amendment left business open to continue windfall profits and tax the people directly, and reduce imports.

            • Hey, they use two sets of books for sales tax. 1/2 goes to the government and the other 1/2 goes into their pocket. I use to deliver heating oil and the boss gave me cash to pick up the load. No ticket, no paper work but you can bet he collected the sales tax. Car dealers with phoney trade ins. Come on now the list is endless. Honesty is the road to starvation.

          • Billy…I’m inclined to agree with you with the exception that the problem is taxation, spending and not investing. Going over the cliff might not be such a bad idea. It would take us back to the Clinton tax era. Under the economic stewardship of Ronald Reagan the marginal tax rate on the wealthiest of Americans from 70% to 38%. He promised it would spur an orgy of investment and rocket the economy to new levels of production and prosperity. It produced the deepest recession since the Great Depression. Bill Clinton reversed Reagans course, raising taxes on the wealthy, and lowering them for the working and middle classes. This produced the longest sustained economic expansion in American history. It produced budgetary surpluses allowing the government to begin paying down the crippling debt begun under Reagan. In 2000, Clinton’s last year, the surplus amounted to $236 billion. It is the last black ink America has seen. George W. Bush immediately reversed Clinton,s policy in order to revive Reagan,s. Again showering an embarrassment of riches on the already most embarrassingly rich. He ladled out some $630 billion in tax cuts to the top 1% of income earners. In eight years, George W left the American people with a 11 (some say 15) Trillion public debt to pay, increasing the public debt by 89%. Bush bilked $150 billion from the Social Security trust fund in order to make the shortfall look smaller.

            Since the 2008 crisis, many U.S. companies have become cash hoarders. Apple doggedly held onto around $110 billion before deciding to return some of that to shareholders in the form of dividend payments. Apple is still holding billions intact. Firms have dramatically restocked their cash holdings through restraining in areas like capital spending, dividend payments, and share buybacks. There cannot be a long term financial revival until these companies start to invest in America.

            As David Letterman so aptly puts it “I wouldn’t give these troubles to a monkey on a rock”

            • And the voters liked Clinton so much they elected Bush to follow. The liked Bush so much they re elected him. Look it’s the voters who are responsible for the debt and the voters will pay the price, not the politicians they elect. Like how many of them are on food stamps?

            • Tess – your opinion on Reagan and Bush are a bit harsh. I used to be a republican, am now a total independent, and am still looking for positives in today’s democrat party. Because of trying to be fair i spent a great deal of time looking at Reagan. the two url’s i include, talk equally about Reagan’s beauty marks and warts. You’ll discover that Reagan inherited a horrible economy and the Crash of ’87 started in Hong Kong, moved west – reasons: program trading, overvaluation, illiquidity, and market psychology. Reagan’s biggest fault was not cutting Mil spending to make sure USSR would fall. He saw in one year he had gone a little far and started tax increases every year from ’83 0n. But they did have a positive impact overall.


              BTW: the last real influence Bush had on the National debt was in 2005 and he had disagreements with the almost full Democrat Congress elected in 2004 and totally lost control as soon as the full majority democrat house and senate took over in 1/2007. Since the 2008 crises (mainly caused by Frank), companies are holding their monies ( probably quite a bit off-shore) and will not start re-investing until businesses feel there is stable leadership and direction. The ability of the present administration to broker a true non-partisan Tax plan and a reduced and stable budget. Businesses don’t trust nor will they do much R&D or investing.

            • Tess – I’m not sure where you’re getting your information, but it is incomplete. With Reagan, similar to Obama, he inherited a recession with terrible inflation – double digit (Obama didn’t get bad inflation, just a bad economy). It is true that during the first 2 years of his presidency the unemployment was continually going up. However, it had started declining during that 2nd year, and continued declining through the rest of his term all the way down to 5.3% in 1988 (his last year). Here are the year by year unemployment numbers for Reagan:

              Jan 81 7.5% (Carter handed Reagan a declining economy and bad inflation)
              Jan 82 8.6%
              Jan 83 10.4% (the worst was actually December 82 at 10.8%, that’s when the decline started)
              Jan 84 8.0%
              Jan 85 7.3%
              Jan 86 6.7%
              Jan 87 6.6%
              Jan 88 5.7% (finish his term at 5.3%)

              Bush Sr’s Average unemployment was 6.3%, Clinton’s was 5.2%, Bush Jr was 5.27%. So Bush Jr, did about the same as Clinton.

              You did not give complete numbers on the deficit spending. Reagan and both Bushs averaged in the 300 Billion in spending. Clinton’s average was in the 200 billions per year. It is true that Clinton’s presidency saw the only 4 year period of surplus, which was with a republican congress who controlled the purse strings. Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich both have spoken about the cooperation and deal making they did during this time.

              You see, the president doesn’t actually have any spending power. He has influence, but not authority when it comes to spending and even tax policy. He can put forth things, but in the end Congress controls spending.

              Bush’s highest spending was in the year of a democrat ruled congress.

              The conclusion is that Reagan’s policies *did* produce an era of prosperity. The country had a very strong economy from 1983 all the way to 2008. Clinton even went so far as to say ‘the age of big government is over.’ What you’ve said simply isn’t backed by history. Even John F. Kennedy talked about the need to cut taxes similar to what Reagan and Bush did.

              What you are saying about the rich getting all the tax breaks is an incomplete truth. The fact is that in America there is a new discrimination that is accepted by many, wealth discrimination. It is the belief that the government has a right to take a higher portion from one person simply because of what they have. It is the belief that personal property rights are dependent on how much property you have (income is a form of property). It is a new form of taxation without representation, something this country fought against in its founding.

              As i recall, Bush cut the top rate from 39 to 35% and the bottom rate from 15% to 10%. This means that the lowest income people actually got a bigger tax cut than the wealthy.

              I would ask you to consider your ways when you talk about ‘the wealthiest’ and realize that ‘the wealthy’ are now a demographic of people who some believe it is OK to discriminate against. America should really go to a flat rate for all, and make it a part of the constitution. This way, when they raise taxes, it will be on ‘everyone’ not just a minority who doesn’t have voting power. And money can’t overcome numbers, otherwise we would still be English colonies, and congress wouldn’t be able to raise their rate because the wealthy would be able to prevent it.

              And it is discrimination just as much as charging people for big mac’s based on how much money they make. Or when you buy a home, the seller looks at your household income before deciding what you will pay. Or say when you go to a grocery store with lines divided by income level, and the price of your groceries will change depending on your income. Discrimination is discrimination, and we need to get rid of it as a nation.

            • In 1980, following the outbreak of the Iran–Iraq War, oil production in Iran nearly stopped, and Iraq’s oil production was severely cut as well. All Carter’s fault?

        • Michael Albertson — so you state that success is to be penalized while failure rewarded (the opposite of all teachings)?

          In such a case there is no help for you — I can do many things but brains into a fool’s head.

          • Well we got the “no child left behind” program. We are willing to spend a lot more on a retard than a gifted kid.

    • Ron Paul (undeniably the Greatest American of the 21st Century):

      ““One only needs to reflect on the dramatic decline in the value of the dollar that has taken place since the Fed was established in 1913. The goods and services you could buy for $1.00 in 1913 now cost nearly $21.00. Another way to look at this is from the perspective of the purchasing power of the dollar itself. It has fallen to less than $0.05 of its 1913 value. We might say that the government and its banking cartel have together stolen $0.95 of every dollar as they have pursued a relentlessly inflationary policy.”” — Ron Paul, End the Fed

  2. Nate — they are trying to patch the Titanic with bubble gum….

    We are already over the cliff…and screwed for generations to come!

    (I think this is worth 10+ bonus points… so I can beat Goethe Behr…lol)

  3. In the News — Puerto Rico wants to join the USA as a State.

    NOT in the News — Texas wants to exit same.

    LOL — lets get another welfare state and replace it with the one (Texas) that’s the 15th greatest world economic power….

    • Ben Swann, the Fox 19 Network crusader, must be really grateful that “W” is not president or he would be languishing at Guantanamo. The Fox Network (which is shown on channel WXIX Cincinnati) is owned by Rupert Murdock, of England (Australia), who engaged in phone hacking, police bribery, and exercising improper influence in the pursuit of reporting stories.

      • Goethe Behr — HAVE YOU LOST YOUR MIND?!?!

        “…his (Barack’s) answers seem pretty straight to me.”

        Barack Hussein dances around the issues and promotes himself vs Rmoney in his spinning replies.

        Our wannabe Lil’ Dictator (BHO) lies on all levels here. And when he starts stuttering you know a Big Lie is about to follow (while stuttering his small brain is trying to formulate a reply that may not be noticed as untruth).

        #1 Lie — Barack Hussein said he would Veto the NDAA (if passed)). What a nice TRAP he laid for all these dunces that thought they could display “Patriotism” on the Floor (since then they could say: We voted for it, but the Prez Vetoed it).

        Then does the COMPLETELY OPPOSITE and signs this pernicious Unconstitutional document into Law on New Year’s Eve, when no-one is watching!

        When a Judge finds it, at a much later date Unconstitutional, he, Barack Hussein, again breaks his word and sics his lawyers to overturn it in an Appellate Court (by some crony Judge) in a few days after the decision!

        So, we still have this pernicious and unconstitutional Law — courtesy of Barack Hussein — that allows American Citizens to be illegally whisked away ON SUSPICION ONLY without DUE COURSE OF LAW. And if they, such US Citizens, are never heard of again, it is because Barack Hussein has usurped the Powers of the Courts, since they are to be denied legal representation!

        And the list of the TRANSGRESSIONS AGAINST ALL AMERICANS by this Little Man, that occupies our White House, KEEPS GROWING!

        Here is proof of Barack Hussein’s PERFIDY!

        If you want to save our Freedoms — SPREAD THIS LIKE WILDFIRE!

        • Surfisher:

          Well, no, Swann asked why the government was appealing the judge’s ruling against indefinite detention.

          Obama began with an answer that should please Sam Reusser—-that his first job is to keep the American people safe. Then he noted that he banned torture and tried to close Gitmo. He noted that he “inherited” the guys down there, now, but he would not jail anyone new like that.

          The NeoCons then tacked indefinite detention onto a military spending law, and Obama said he didn’t want to veto the entire military funding, so he wrote a signing statement saying he would not use indefinite detention.

          Then Swann asked about the “kill list.” Obama claimed that the “kill list” was a whole “tier” of al Qaeda leaders, who have been killed. The only American was Anwar al-Awlaki. Swann did not follow up on that. (American journalists suck at follow-up).

          Then Swann questioned our funding of the Syrian opposition. Somebody on here was screaming that we are not fighting Syria hard enough (I think it was Daisy). Obama said we are only giving non-lethal assistance. He said we are not going to get involved in a civil war that includes some people we don’t want to be associated with. AND—we do not want to get into another fighting war in the Middle East.

          As for the Romney comment, he rightly identified Romney as a ChickenHawk NeoCon who seemed to want to start a war anywhere. Can’t fault Obama for that.

          I couldn’t get Surfisher’s link to work, but the one I provided was a 7-minute cut of the same interview.

          When it comes to war versus peace, Obama says the right things. The question is whether you believe that he is trying to wind down stuff he was originally saddled with. The overuse of drones suggests otherwise.

          But you have to admire the guy for going one-on-one like that, without “handlers” standing by to “remind him of a prior commitment.” It was just mano a mano, and that impresses me.

          • Goethe – just had to throw the gauntlet at me, huh. Yes I am an almost NeoCon (actually older NeoCon). I am a strong non-interventionist as long as it doesn’t aggressively threaten our ideology at home. I actually gave you research URLs that Iraq had WPM since the 80’s and Saddam stupidly said he was going to destroy the US many, many times. And btw when we got ready to invade, nothing stopped Saddam from saying, Don’t attack, bring US inspectors in.

            But we should have never put boots on the ground, we should have put missiles and drones in the air, even then. And why did we ever put boots on the ground in Afghan. And BO never took ANY!!! grief from moving 100,000 set of boots from Iraq to Afghan. Kennedy and LBJ took less grief over ‘Nam than Bush did over Iraq.

            You’re right Goethe, I support BO’s drone policy – my only concern is when he turns that policy on us, we’ll never know what hit us and there will be no representation.

            Al Qaeda is a non-homogeneous international organization without a true “home” country now. and they declared war on us – the rules of war has always been (until ‘Nam) those with the biggest and the bestest usually win. al Qaeda still hasn’t said “We give up” and the best, least casualty, efficient solution is the Drone.

            To bad BO doesn’t feel that way about protecting those who work for him, instead of watching four of his own be murdered. Because of a political plan.

  4. Nate – what is it about my comments need moderating. I was out of line one time and apologized for my behavior. I am outspoken, conservative but research quite a bit before responding – especially if my comments are cutting. People have a tendency to take MainStreamMedia word for word without verifying actual conditions and data. That is something i don’t swallow very easily. If it best i drop off, that’s fine with me. Thank you.

    • Sam: I suspect you got a message that your comments are “awaiting moderation.” Don’t get paranoid. It’s a system process. It doesn’t mean you’re being watched. It means “moderation” in the sense of the electronic “moderator” being temporarily unable to complete the post for technical reasons. All of us get that message from time to time.

  5. Ron Paul, freed of the encumbrance of running for office, IS NOW DEVOTING HIS TIME to Educate the People (and especially the young generation that will be our Future in a few years) that the Rights of the Individual, the US Citizen, are NEVER to be transgressed upon by any Unconstitutional “Laws, Rules and Regulations” that may be enacted by ANYONE in Office!

    That Wars the White House starts without Congressional approval are not only Unconstitutional, but have bankrupted us! That our Money is funny paper printed by a Private, Never Audited, organization that is NOT part of the US Treasury Department (the only LAWFUL AGENCY ALLOWED BY THE US CONSTITUTION TO ISSUE VALID US Dollars) — the Federal Reserve Board!

    And the list of our Citizens sufferings goes on!

    Ron Paul will now have a greater impact in saving America then ever before! Expect great things from this Greatest American in the months to follow — and in the next few years — expect that HIS Liberty Movement will Finally END the Tyranny that the Centralized Federal Government has tried to impose on We, the People!

    In this latest interview (11-30-2012), Ron Paul logically dissects the problems of our nation — and gives apodictic solutions to the Intentional Mess the Criminals that have taken Control of the US Government have plunged us into!

    Must watch 10 minutes video — spread it like Wildfire!

    • Surfisher:

      A transcript is not available yet, but Ron Paul says the “fiscal cliff” is a manufactured crisis. He says nobody’s serious about cutting spending, saying—

      “even though the U.S. military is EXPONENTIALLY larger than any other country, and is notorious for its inefficiencies and cost overruns, Republicans cannot seem to stomach even one penny of cuts to the Pentagon budget.

      “This is unfortunate, because this is the easiest, most obvious place to START getting spending under control. The Military-Industrial Complex, and unconstitutional overseas interventions should be the FIRST place we look for budget cuts.

      “Similarly, Democrats are digging in their heels on not cutting ANY welfare or entitlement spending, and instead, propose to fix the deficit by raising taxes on the rich, even though the U.S. government ALREADY has a progressive tax code. . .

      “Both sides will sacrifice their pro-liberty/small government stances in certain areas, in order to GROW the government where they prefer. Liberty always loses in the eleventh hour>”

      • Goethe Behr — well done.

        I think a major point you missed is the following:

        Taxes are way beyond what made us Revolt against the King of England (trying to get us to pay nearly a 5% tax)!

        Anything higher than that (by logic) should be considered as Criminal Taxation by “wasteful, abusive, unconstitutional government”!

        • Got to stay focused on jobs and the economy. Them 43% are with Obama 100% when it comes to hiking up taxes. As I posted before, no price is too high if you do not have to pay it.

        • Surfisher…before you send another wildfire series you need to review our American history. First, where did you and Ron Paul come up with the 5 per cent tax figure for the colonist. First, you must remember the colonist were subjects of the Crown of England. In 1764, King George decided his subjects should help pay for the French and Indian War and for the upkeep of the British soldiers in the colonies by placing a tax on foreign refined sugar and increased taxes on coffee, indigo, and certain kinds of wine. It banned importation of rum and French wines. The colonist were not upset by the tax but upset because they were not allowed a representative in Parliament to vote on the tax. Hence “no taxation without representation”.

          Please give your logic for using the terms “criminal taxation”. What makes our present government “unconstitutional?” Please note that I ask for no comment on wasteful.

          • @Tess Trueheart — thanks for the partial historical data in your post.
            On the below:
            “”Please give your logic for using the terms “criminal taxation”(1) What makes our present government “unconstitutional(2)?””

            Logic (I advise you to read Aristotle’s Organon…to comprehend the mechanism by which Logic works):

            1) Theft of money is criminal. Taxation is the governmental theft of money. Therefore, all taxation is criminal.

            2) Our government (the body of men and women, that have sworn an Oath to uphold and protect the US Constitution, in order to HOLD LEGITIMATE Office) through the constant process of passing Unconstitutional “Laws”(NDAA, Patriot Act, TSA, etc.) have negated their Oath of Office, thus have become an Unconstitutional Government.


            Hope this helps.

  6. Tess Trueheart — thanks for the partial historical data in your post.
    On the below:
    “”Please give your logic for using the terms “criminal taxation”(1) What makes our present government “unconstitutional(2)?””

    Logic (I advise you to read Aristotle’s Organon…to comprehend the mechanism by which Logic works):

    1) Theft of money is criminal. Taxation is the governmental theft of money. Therefore, all taxation is criminal.

    2) Our government (the body of men and women, that have sworn an Oath to uphold and protect the US Constitution, in order to HOLD LEGITIMATE Office) through the constant process of passing Unconstitutional “Laws”(NDAA, Patriot Act, TSA, etc.) have negated their Oath of Office, thus have become an Unconstitutional Government.


    Hope this helps.

    • Sorry but it’s not your call. We have a Supreme Court that makes said calls. They are the finest judges money can buy. These guys can and will put those square pegs in the round holes without so much as a scrape on the edges.

        • I can remember way back when Noah was still building his boat, some county judge tossed out a bunch of DUI’s because they were issues at a check point on New Years Eve. Ruled, without probable cause the stop is unconstitutional. Went to Federal court and that judge ruled because 1/2 of hwy deaths are alcohol related a slight inconvenience to a few, many lives can be saved. Well we now have checkpoints stopping thousands so a small number of DUIs can be issued and we still have 50% of hwy deaths alcohol related.

    • Surfisher…Actually, I have studied Aristotle. All Aristotle’s logic revolves around one notion: the deduction. Certain things have been supposed, and each of the “things supposed” is a premise of the argument, and the “results of necessity” is the conclusion. Aristotle made no effort to develop a sentential (propositional)logic.

      The powers to tax (Philadelphia Convention) and spend are concurrent powers of the federal government and the individual states. They are also currently held to be independent powers, not subject to the limitations imposed by the other enumerated powers of Congress. Not pleasant but not criminal.

      • Tess Trueheart — sorry, but your comment on Aristotle’s Organon (Logic) sounds like an uneducated Google thing you looked up. If you have actually studied Logic, you would not have posted such silliness (no suppositions can be accepted as premises — a premise needs to go through vigorous testing to be determined as VALID, and then, and only then, can said premise be used to apply the logical processes of an argument to determine if the conclusions are true or false).

        I’ll reiterate — theft is a crime. Taxation is the government’s wording for theft. Therefore, any taxation is criminal.

        No matter what laws a government passes to justify the taking of some money belonging to the individual — and whatever terms are used for such partial confiscation of one’s property (taxes, duty, fees, etc.)— that act is still theft. And since all agree that the premise that Theft is a Crime is Valid, the conclusion is that any and all taxation is criminal, must be true.

        That is Logic (on which our entire Western Civilization is rooted).

        Hope this helps.


        P.S. Did not see your SCIOLISTIC take on our current government being unconstitutional…or did you comprehend that one at least.

        • Surfisher:

          But your logic relies on a false premise. You are defining taxation as theft, but that assumes that the act is not legal. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution clearly gives the government the right to tax. As well as to borrow, to regulate commerce, coining (printing) money–AND to determine the value of that money.

          I assume you are basing “theft” on the claim that the income tax was never properly ratified, but in the real world, most things are determined by precedent, and almost a century of unchallenged precedent says the govmint can tax yer income.

          Besides, “theft” is the taking without exchange, and whether you like what is purchased or not, in exchange for your taxes, you get part ownership in a whole lot of guns, planes, ships, and bombs, among other things.

          You can argue that too much is taxed, borrowed, and spent, but you can’t really call it theft.

            • Billy:

              I dunno. Fraud suggests that something was promised and then something else was done.

              The original taxation doesn’t have any promise. The money is just taken for “guvmint.” Also, most things are voted on in advance, on the record–except for covert foreign adventures, and of course, wars that are kept off the books altogether. And, I guess they’re not “fraud,” since they don’t exist, except in the real world.

            • Glad to hear it, no fraud, I was a little worried that they may have pilfered the SS trust fund or maybe diverted a few dollars of the gas tax money away from roads and bridges.

            • Billy:

              But we were talking about the process of collecting the money. The process of collecting it is not theft and it’s not fraud. How they use the money after they get it is another matter.

          • Goethe Behr — re:

            “But your logic relies on a false premise. You are defining taxation as theft, but that assumes that the act is not legal.”

            Goethe Behr — you are placing the cart before the horse. It was the conclusion that all taxation is criminal, NOT THE PREMISE.

            I’m getting tired of educating youths that PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE LESSONS GIVEN, but I’ll give it one more try just for you and Tess.

            Firstly, the Premise was NOT that taxation is theft, but that Theft is a Crime.

            Now, try and pay attention, since I’ll structure the logical argument this time only.

            The apodictic Premise that Theft is a Crime has to be accepted as True (since no-one could argue in any way (logic, sophistry, dialectics, etc.) that theft is not a crime.

            I’ll break it down to the smallest quanta, since obviously you and Tess, did not comprehend the end result by the short cut I used (thinking it must be obvious to all — Theft is a crime, taxation is theft, thus all taxation is criminal).

            The Premise that Theft is a Crime being TRUE.

            q: What is theft?

            a: The removal of one’s valuables causing a loss of some, or all, of any person’s rightful ownership of their property.

            q: What are the methods of theft that can cause an individual’s loss of their possessions?

            a) Getting robbed in a dark alley by some mugger (a rarity these days).

            b) Having the Government “legalize” laws that steal parts of one’s property (through the euphemism of Taxation) — the most prevalent theft perpetrated on the individual…now days.

            Therefore, the Syllogism that — Theft is a crime, thus criminal, and governmental taxation being also a theft, is therefore also criminal — MUST BE TRUE.

            • Surfisher – unfortunately 2)b) is an opinion and not an axiom in the closed ecology of this particular Democratic Republic where “We the People” elected the rotten Congress the gave us the 16th Amendment. Thus “we” would have repeal that Amendment as well as the Constitution that “we” have as citizens agreed to uphold.

              That is not to say that your “opinion” has very valid appeal and how most of us feel about this particular government fornication.

            • Surfisher:

              It wasn’t a law. It was the Constitution: Article 1, Section 8. We may not like it but taxation is not “theft” because it’s part of the plan by which the Founding Fathers set up for us.

            • Them Founding Fathers were one slick group of shysters for sure. Rather than send taxes to King George the came up with a scam whereby the were on the receiving end of the pipeline in place of the King.

    • Tess:

      After the election, Grover Norquist said that the entire Obama campaign was about calling Romney a “poopyhead.”

      I think this election will probably be remembered for two words: “poopyhead” and “malarkey.”

      And, actually, I think that sums up the recent campaign pretty well.

      • If there is a “poopyhead” title, it should go to Grover Norquist. Norquist commandeered the GOP with his tyrannical oath and holds 95% of the Republicans in Congress hostage to his commands. It is incomprehensible. He founded American Tax Reform as a nonprofit orgianization which means ATR pays NO taxes but can pay Norquist a lucrative salary. Records released by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee allege that ATR served as a “conduit” for funds that flowed from Jack Abramoff’s (former felon lobbyist) clients to finance grass-roots lobbying campaigns. He is married to a Palestinian Muslim, Samah Alrayyes,former director of the Islamic Free Market Institute. Norquist serves on the board of directors of the National Rifle Association, the Hispanic Leadership Fund, the Indian-American Republican Caucus, and, trying to add a Parental Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution. In 2010, Norquist joined the advisory board of GOProud, a political organization representing conservative gays, lesbians, and transgendered people. Norquist also sits on a six-person advisory panel that nominates Time magazine’s Person of the Year. He told journalist, Steven Kroft, about his goal of chopping government “in half and then shrink it again to where we were at the turn of the [20th] century” before Social Security and Medicare”. Norquist has called for reductions in defense spending as one way to reduce the size of government. Malarkey is another good word for all this.

        • Tess:

          My complaint about Norquist is that he is such a poor spokesperson. He seems petulant and insecure. In interviews, people ask him about the pledge that senators and representatives made to him. Disingenuously, he says they don’t pledge to him, they pledge to the American people.

          Get real, Grove. While I think he CAN say that it is a pledge to the American people, it is an outright lie and insult to our intelligence to say that it is NOT a pledge to him, since he wrote it, published it, personally got many, if not most, of the elected officials to submit to it, and continues to police the pledge.

          What he COULD say is that while he IS pushing the pledge, he is just the SPOKESPERSON for a movement. Instead, he seems to want all the personal attention he can get.

          I am never comfortable with one unelected man dictating ANY policy to the entire government.

          • So you think a group of elected people can do a better job? I can give you 16 trillion reasons why they can’t.

  7. The Fifteenth Amendment states: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote and hold office shall not be denied or abridged by any State on the account of race, color, nativity, property, creed or previous condition of servitude”. Virginia, Mississippi, Texas and Georgia, were required to ratify this amendment as a precondition for having congressional representation. Evidently, they have forgotten.

    • @Tess Trueheart — sorry, but your comment on Aristotle’s Organon (Logic) sounds like an uneducated Google thing you looked up. If you have actually studied Logic, you would not have posted such silliness (no suppositions can be accepted as premises — a premise needs to go through vigorous testing to be determined as VALID, and then, and only then, can said premise be used to apply the logical processes of an argument to determine if the conclusions are true or false).

      I’ll reiterate — theft is a crime. Taxation is the government’s wording for theft. Therefore, any taxation is criminal.

      No matter what laws a government passes to justify the taking of some money belonging to the individual — and whatever terms are used for such partial confiscation of one’s property (taxes, duty, fees, etc.)— that act is still theft. And since all agree that the premise that Theft is a Crime is Valid, the conclusion is that any and all taxation is criminal, must be true.

      That is Logic (on which our entire Western Civilization is rooted).

      Hope this helps.


      P.S. Did not see your SCIOLISTIC take on our current government being unconstitutional…or did you comprehend that one at least.

      • Surfisher..I understood each insult. You really need to go back to a philosophy class. As for myself, I will use Aristotle’s advise “Anybody can become angry – that is easy, but to be angry with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way – that is not within everybody’s power and is not easy”.

        • Tess: That was good. But isn’t anger, by definition, irrational? I mean, you can be forceful in you viewpoint, and you can be adamant in your defense, and firm in your actions, but that’s not the same as being angry.

          In my experience, if you look beyond the anger, you’ll find fear. People get angry because they feel vulnerable, and so they strike out. I think that’s the cause of anger in arguments. You don’t get angry if you think you’re “winning,” you get angry (partly at yourself) for losing–because you are convinced that you are right, but wish that you knew more on the subject, so you had more ammunition AGAINST the other person.

          If you realize that anger denotes fear, you can turn it around by figuring out why the situation or discussion threatens the other person. Of course, that requires that you care about the other person, so that you can work toward a win-win situation.

          Our problems in Washington is that our elected representatives have lost the good will to find solutions that will give both sides some of what they want. In fact, rather than win-win, they will give up some of what they want to make sure that the other side doesn’t get any of what they want.

          On another thread, we discussed a 60-Minutes episode in which young children are generous, but when they get a little older, the reach a stage i which they will purposely harm themselves, if they can harm the other person more. That’s the mentality of our reps today. Bad kids.

          • Goethe..this must be my argumentative day. When I said I studied Aristotle that does not mean I am a follower. My firm foundation comes from an old cowboy and, even after he sent me off to school,I stand by his teachings. Therefore, I cannot equate fear with anger. Fear is a weakness and righteous anger is a blessing.

            • Tess: I didn’t mean that fear and anger were the same thing, but I do believe that if you look behind anger, you’ll find fear. And the bestway to defuse anger is to find out why the person is afraid.

              I think we have a terminology problem. “Righteous anger” is what I would call “dedicated resolve,” or something like that.

              To me, anger isn’t anger if it’s not irrational. (Although there was the episode of Star Trek, in which Spock concluded that there was no logical solution to his problem, so he reasoned that an illogical gamble was the only remaining course.)

              To me, fear is a weakness, but anger is also a weakness. It is a loss of control People don’t make good decisions when they are angry, and that’s sort of the point.

  8. Ron Paul KO’s Shalom Bernanke (King Fed)

    Enjoy this priceless video — and spread it like wildfire!

    Best moment.

    Ron: Is Gold money?
    Shalom: Aah… No.
    Ron: Then why central banks hold it (gold)?
    Shalom: Aah…it (gold) is called reserves.

    LOL — If Gold is NOT money, then why should International and our Central Banks hold Gold in vaults, and not just throw it in a river…?!

  9. Classic Ron Paul — the sole voice of Reason in a Den of Thieves (Congress). It is amazing that Ron Paul still remains UNTAINTED, LOGICAL, UNCORRUPTED AND STILL Cheerful and Optimistic after being immersed for 30 years in this Cesspool that has become an American disgrace!

    Spread this 4 minute video like Wildfire!

    Partial Transcript:

    “…A government out of control, unrestrained by the constitution, the rule of law or morality. Bickering over petty politics as we descend into chaos. The philosophy that destroys us is not even defined.

    We have broken from reality a psychotic nation. Ignorance with a pretense of knowledge replacing wisdom. Money does not grow on trees, nor does prosperity come from a government printing press or escalating deficits.

    We are now in the midst of unlimited spending of the people’s money. Exorbitant taxation, deficits of trillions of dollars spent on a failed welfare-warfare system. An epidemic of cronyism. Unlimited supplies of paper money equated with wealth. A central bank that deliberately destroys the value of the currency in secrecy, without restraint, without nary a whimper, yet cheered on by the pseudo-capitalists of Wall Street, the military-industrial complex, and Detroit.

    We police our world empire with troops on 700 bases and in 130 countries around the world. A dangerous war now spreads throughout the Middle East and Central Asia. Thousands of innocent people being killed as we become known as the torturers of the 21st century.

    We assume that by keeping the already known torture pictures from the public’s eye, we will be remembered only as a generous and good people. If our enemies want to attack us only because we are free and rich, proof of torture would be irrelevant.

    The sad part of all this is that we have forgotten what made America great, good and prosperous. We need to quickly refresh our memories and once again reinvigorate our love, understanding and confidence in liberty.

    The status quo cannot be maintained considering the current conditions. Violence and lost liberty will result without some revolutionary thinking. We must escape from the madness of crowds now gathering.

    The good news is that reversal is achievable through peaceful and intellectual means, and fortunately the number of those who care are growing exponentially….”
    here is the full 4 minute video:

  10. Barack Hussein Obama is our president…?

    How low has our Nation sunk to have someone, that can’t even put two words together without a teleprompter, usurp the White House residency?!

    This clown is not fit to run the night-shift at a 7-11 store….

    Spread this 1 minute video like Wildfire!

  11. I am wondering the lessons of Plan B. Did Boehner know it would fail, and put it to a vote to show Obama that even a small compromise wouldn’t fly?

    Boehner seems to be a leader without a following. He really can’t negotiate, because he can’t guarantee that anything he agrees to would pass. He should have been replaced by soeone who COULD speak for the majority of Rep reps.

    The purpose of Plan B was to promise everyone a tax break for all income up to a million bucks. The idea was to divide the opposition, forcing them to vote against a tax cut for everybody.

    Seems like a good tactical move. The GOP could have said, look, we tried to save the middle class and the other side shot it down. Instead, the GOP shot down its own idea. So now, Democrats can say, see? The Republicans ONLY care about millionaires!!

    If I were a betting man, I’d say that this will go to the last minute, and they will announce that they’re very close to agreement, so they will postpone any changes until February.

    • I’ll drink to that last sentence. There are a lot more votes to be gotten by taxing the few than by taxing the many. Bad for the country but great for the politician.

  12. The voters expect their man to bring home the bacon and the don’t care if he has to beg borrow or steal the money to do it.

    • And that is one of my few criticisms of Ron Paul. He complained about earmarks, but brought home a LOT more than most.

      I don’t think it’s right to say “there’s no lock on the cookie jar, so I’m gonna take as much as I can.”

      • Not his way of doing thing but that’s what he was elected to do. Maybe Johnson was a better choice but you see how far he got.

Comments are closed.