545 vs. 300,000,000

[fastblackmerc]

The article below is completely neutral, not anti Republican or Democrat.

Charlie Reese, a retired reporter for the Orlando Sentinel has hit the nail directly on the head, defining clearly who it is that in the final analysis must assume responsibility for the judgments made that impact each one of us every day.

It's a short but good read. Worth the time. Worth remembering!

545 vs. 300,000,000

EVERY CITIZEN NEEDS TO READ THIS AND THINK ABOUT WHAT THIS JOURNALIST HAS SCRIPTED IN THIS MESSAGE. READ IT AND THEN REALLY THINK ABOUT OUR CURRENT POLITICAL DEBACLE.

Charley Reese has been a journalist for 49 years.

545 PEOPLE -- By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.... . The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace
545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red ..

If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power..

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.

Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees...

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.

What you do with this article now that you have read it......... Is up to you.



Sales Tax
School Tax
Liquor Tax
Luxury Tax
Excise Taxes
Property Tax
Cigarette Tax
Medicare Tax
Inventory Tax
Real Estate Tax
Well Permit Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Inheritance Tax
Road Usage Tax
CDL license Tax
Dog License Tax
State Income Tax
Food License Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Gross Receipts Tax
Social Security Tax
Service Charge Tax
Fishing License Tax
Federal Income Tax
Building Permit Tax
IRS Interest Charges
Hunting License Tax
Marriage License Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Personal Property Tax
Accounts Receivable Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
Utility Taxes Vehicle License Registration Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax


Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, & our nation was the most prosperous in the world.
We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

What in the hell happened? Can you spell 'politicians? ' I hope this goes around THE USA at least 100 times!!!
YOU can help it get there!!!
GO AHEAD - - - BE AN AMERICAN!!!

PS.

If you do the right thing and pass this on - which is entirely up to you -
please do the right thing and highlight and delete any addresses you receive with it.

Thank You

Thanks Phil (dakslim)

[CBT]

I don't see Tourism Tax on there, which I have been hit with on a hotel bill.

[Pops]

This has been around for a while. It is time to stand up and demand a change!

[CBT]

This has been around for a while. It is time to stand up and demand a change!

Change we can believe in?

[Pops]

That would be as the article stated. Replace them all!

[dakslim]

That would be as the article stated. Replace them all!

Obviously we can't replace them all as the party in power gets to re-district their territories:( but we could, and should kick everyone out that we can.:flamer:

[CBT]

obviously we can't replace them all as the party in power gets to re-district their territories:( but we could, and should kick everyone out that we can.:flamer:
22807








>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[MrBluGruv]

I don't see Tourism Tax on there, which I have been hit with on a hotel bill.

I was under the impression that that was a local construct, not a federal one.

Just one more tax of course though...

[dakslim]

And we musn't forget the 1% transaction tax that Pelosi is backing. This would tax a direct deposit, manual deposit, atm transaction, etc. etc. etc.

[MrBluGruv]

And we musn't forget the 1% transaction tax that Pelosi is backing. This would tax a direct deposit, manual deposit, atm transaction, etc. etc. etc.

Hmm, sounds like the "Bank of Denver Matress" is gonna skyrocket in popularity...


Seriously though, I think the government wants to get a piece of the action on literally EVERY exchange of anything.

"How many times can we tax the same piece of money?"

[illwood]

I normally abstain from the political threads, but since this one isn't aimed at any party in particular. . .

We need to bring back significant taxes on the *very* wealthy. Not counting the crookedness and other forms of handouts, I think that it is probably pretty expensive to run this country (schools, military, roads. . .). If the people that made the most, contributed the most, shouldn't that make it easier for those of use that are more like "hundred-aires"?

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213

I've also got a crazy idea. The kind they should haul me off in a straight-jacket for. . .

What if, after we paid our taxes and whatnot, if not only we got back what we overpaid, why don't we get back what is underspent?

This makes more sense for town and state governments, and forces people to treat running a government, like running a company (that doesn't make a profit). Then once the national debt is gone, we can start having the Feds do the same.

[fastblackmerc]

How about EVERYONE pays a flat 10% tax, no deductions, no tax code, nothing.

A flat 10% for all....... we the people, corporations, mom-n-pop shops EVERYONE.

[Pops]

How about EVERYONE pays a flat 10% tax, no deductions, no tax code, nothing.

A flat 10% for all....... we the people, corporations, mom-n-pop shops EVERYONE.

That has been the answer for years! Seems like a good fix to me.;)

[dakslim]

How about EVERYONE pays a flat 10% tax, no deductions, no tax code, nothing.

A flat 10% for all....... we the people, corporations, mom-n-pop shops EVERYONE.

I've been saying that for years...no loopholes! Get rid of a ton of govt. employees too.:beer:

[NHTHAWK]

AMEN! This idea would easily send the bureaucrats packing!


How about EVERYONE pays a flat 10% tax, no deductions, no tax code, nothing.

A flat 10% for all....... we the people, corporations, mom-n-pop shops EVERYONE.

[Bluerauder]

If the people that made the most, contributed the most, shouldn't that make it easier for those of use that are more like "hundred-aires"?

I've got news for you ..... THEY DO !!!!

What if, after we paid our taxes and whatnot, if not only we got back what we overpaid, why don't we get back what is underspent?

Underspent ??? Not very likely. However, any budget excesses in projects or programs are used immediately to cover overruns and shortfalls in other areas. Overruns, shortfalls, and Unfunded Requirements always far out-number the efficient and underspent programs.


Didn't you come originally from Taxachusetts? I thought so. :rolleyes:

[Phrog_gunner]

Unfairly tax the very wealthy so that they don't use their wealth to create jobs, and the hundred-aires can stay on unemployment. It sounds like a very logical, well thought out plan of an economics professor.

[PonyUP]

The only problem with increasing taxes on the wealthy, is they have the money to find the loopholes and if they get fed up enough they have the ability to live in any country.

Flat tax seems like a good idea to me

[LIGHTNIN1]

I am for an unheard of idea in government, one that i use on a regular basis, Stop Spending. Start top to bottom and eliminate most government agencies as most of them are un necessary. Can you imagine all the money the government would have? Sell off all the equipment, real estate and buildings. Half the employees would have to find private employment. All the pensions that would not have to be paid.Cut taxes to coincide with the smaller government.We would all be richer than the Romans. I just woke up.It was all a dream.I don't have to worry about this ever happening because it will not.:mad2:

[CBT]

I watched Donald Trump being interviewed by Wolf Blitzer a couple nights ago. He said rich people should pay more in taxes because of all the tax breaks they get. He can borrow millions at 1.2% interest, something we can only dream about. I can't remember the name of the other billionaire he was talking about, but he told Trump he pays his top secretary less than a 6 figure salary, yet she is taxed at 30% and he pays in the single %'s. He also talked about his Chinese business partners telling him we are stupid to put up with how our Government let's China get away with murder on trades, and how our companies are flocking to China because of it. Amazing interview.

[illwood]

Didn't you come originally from Taxachusetts? I thought so. :rolleyes:

And proud of it! :D

Does that mean we can't be friends? :depress:

[duhtroll]

Our elected officials do exactly as they are paid to do. Well, except for sex, in which case they pay to do it themselves. :)

People can say it is their fault all they want, (and it is, to an extent) but it won't change anything.

If someone backed up a dump truck full of money to your house, meaning you could educate all your children and grandchildren and retire rich vs. having to work 2 jobs, you would have a very difficult time not selling out to a corporate or special interest, too, and so would I.

I think it isn't so much the people as it is the system and who controls it. People of virtue are only people of virtue until someone finds something they want and can't have. We see not only the old long term crooks but we also see new elected officials play the same games.

My solution is to eliminate lobbies, earmarks and riders, etc..

A bill is about ONE thing - nothing else thrown in to get someone to vote for it. You don't get money for voting a certain way, Senator GimmeGimme. Either you support it or you don't, and if you vote no on every single bill that comes by your desk, even when the people support it? You can pay for your own flight home.

Businesses, coalitions, organizations, groups, etc. should not be allowed to support any politician. Groups don't vote in elections so why should they get to tell politicians what to vote for? Individuals should do that.

Instead of spending their resources influencing politicians, they could spend it advertising their point of view to the public.

We wonder why none of the changes the "common man" wants ever see the light of day. It is because the "common man" has no input into the decision making process.

We have the technology to make every single representative and senator a site where each congressional vote appears for their constituents to discuss and vote online. The representative should be required to vote with the majority of those whom they represent. Period. No special interests, no groups.

Yeah, I know that is a different system of government, but the power is in the wrong hands right now.

I used to say "vote new guy 20xx" which meant elect anyone but who is there now. Lately I don't think it matters. Anyone elected in the current system will be corrupted, young or old.

[Bluerauder]

Our elected officials do exactly as they are paid to do. Well, except for sex, in which case they pay to do it themselves. :)

People can say it is their fault all they want, (and it is, to an extent) but it won't change anything.

If someone backed up a dump truck full of money to your house, meaning you could educate all your children and grandchildren and retire rich vs. having to work 2 jobs, you would have a very difficult time not selling out to a corporate or special interest, too, and so would I.

Speak for yourself and not for others.

I think it isn't so much the people as it is the system and who controls it. People of virtue are only people of virtue until someone finds something they want and can't have. We see not only the old long term crooks but we also see new elected officials play the same games.

What a very cynical view. People of true virtue will not sell out their core principals at any price for any reason.

My solution is to eliminate lobbies, earmarks and riders, etc..

A bill is about ONE thing - nothing else thrown in to get someone to vote for it. You don't get money for voting a certain way, Senator GimmeGimme. Either you support it or you don't, and if you vote no on every single bill that comes by your desk, even when the people support it? You can pay for your own flight home.

Businesses, coalitions, organizations, groups, etc. should not be allowed to support any politician. Groups don't vote in elections so why should they get to tell politicians what to vote for? Individuals should do that.

Instead of spending their resources influencing politicians, they could spend it advertising their point of view to the public.

We wonder why none of the changes the "common man" wants ever see the light of day. It is because the "common man" has no input into the decision making process.

This is not true at all. Your can speak to your representative any time you wish. You have a lot better access at the local, county or state level. However, you can reach your Congressional Representative or your Senator if you want to. Unfortunately, as an individual you have but one voice. Organized groups speak louder. Get like minded people involved and you can be heard. Hell, that is what the special interest groups are doing.

We have the technology to make every single representative and senator a site where each congressional vote appears for their constituents to discuss and vote online. The representative should be required to vote with the majority of those whom they represent. Period. No special interests, no groups.

Yeah, I know that is a different system of government, but the power is in the wrong hands right now.

I used to say "vote new guy 20xx" which meant elect anyone but who is there now. Lately I don't think it matters. Anyone elected in the current system will be corrupted, young or old.

You make several good points ^^^^^^ above. However, I take exception to the some of your statements as noted.

[thathotrodlincn]

Someone needs to read The Fair Tax book by Neal Boortz and John Linder. Under this concept we ELIMINATE the IRS, Income Tax. and all other Federal taxes and replace with a flat consumption tax that everyone pays. No tax returns; no withholding, no tax exemptions, no tax Code, etc. Every dollar spent on a new anythung is subject to the flat (not graduated) tax. (This would hit illegal imegrants the greatest majority of whom pay no tax but are a significant consumer of services such as health care and even Social Security benefits.)

[Vortex]

Consumption tax is the same as VAT. Go to England and find out how much a washing machine costs. Re flat tax, every billionaire cant wait to get that passed. Are you going to exempt to extreme poor like our present system? Billionaires dread a progressive income tax. Our highest tax rate (even if the current rates go back to the earlier ones) are way below most modern countries. "Trickle-down" economics reminds me of what Fletcher said early in Josey Wales. Involvement in politics is generallly a good thing, even those I disagree with (right wing fanatics, left wing fanatics).

[Bluerauder]

How about EVERYONE pays a flat 10% tax, no deductions, no tax code, nothing.

A flat 10% for all....... we the people, corporations, mom-n-pop shops EVERYONE.


I've been saying that for years...no loopholes!


AMEN! This idea would easily send the bureaucrats packing!


Flat tax seems like a good idea to me


Consumption tax is the same as VAT. Go to England and find out how much a washing machine costs. Re flat tax, every billionaire cant wait to get that passed. Are you going to exempt to extreme poor like our present system? Billionaires dread a progressive income tax. Our highest tax rate (even if the current rates go back to the earlier ones) are way below most modern countries. "Trickle-down" economics reminds me of what Fletcher said early in Josey Wales. Involvement in politics is generallly a good thing, even those I disagree with (right wing fanatics, left wing fanatics).

Our government could never survive on a 10% flat tax ..... so you might as well discard that notion right now. The starting point would have to be much higher to offset what they are collecting now. Its unlikely that they would set the bar low enough to demand cuts to current spending. I suspect that it would approach 20% or higher to start.

I have seen the Value Added Tax (VAT) in Germany. Seems to me that at the time some 20 years ago, it was about 15-18% added on to everything that you bought. Of course, this was if you bought it on the local economy or in the tourist traps. You didn't pay it if you bought through the military PX/BX system. The VAT may even be higher now.

By a 2006 EU Directive, the current MINIMUM STANDARD VAT in the European Union is 15%. The MAXIMUM VAT in operation is 25%; though member states are free to set higher rates

Of course, when the currency exchange rate against the US Dollar was better, most things still looked like a good deal with 18% tacked on. Today, the picture would be much, much different.

Gasoline taxes in Germany were oppressive. Their gas was 5-6 times as expensive as what we were paying in the US. This price was based STRICTLY off of the differences in taxes. Tax on fuel was mind boggling. Of course, this is how the Germans fund their 32 hour work week and 6 weeks of annual vacation. No wonder so many of the tiny economy cars had their start in Europe.

Fortunately, US Forces personnel could buy gas at designated stations around the country for prices comparable to US prices. The hitch was that gasoline was "rationed" to about 100 gallons per month. I don't ever recall having a problem running up to that limit, but some folks did.

BTW -- alcohol (spirits) and cigarettes were also rationed and incredibly high priced on the German economy. More taxes ..... sin taxes as they are known.

Seems we are headed down a similar path. Bend over .....

[thathotrodlincn]

Anyone wanting to summarily reject the Fair Tax as forwarded by Boortz and Crongressman Linder should first read and understand their book. Their proposal is revenue neutral - that is the revenue to the government receives neither more nor less than it receives now. As to the methodology for dealing with the very low income individuals/families, read the book. After that, you will be able to discuss from an informed standpoint.

[Bluerauder]

Anyone wanting to summarily reject the Fair Tax as forwarded by Boortz and Crongressman Linder should first read and understand their book. Their proposal is revenue neutral - that is the revenue to the government receives neither more nor less than it receives now. As to the methodology for dealing with the very low income individuals/families, read the book. After that, you will be able to discuss from an informed standpoint.

I have read enough to understand that they use a tax-inclusive methodology in their calculations. Their 23% tax-inclusive rate equates to a 30% rate the way that Americans understand sales taxes and the way they are implemented now. Under Boortz-Lindner a $100 item would cost you $130. Their calculation is 30/130 = 23%. Most people would figure a 23% tax as $100 * 1.23 = $123. If that isn't lying, it sure is misleading.

Moreover, the revenue neutral position would require a 36% tax-inclusive rate. That's really a 56% tax rate using traditional figuring. That $100 item would be $156.25 at 36% tax-inclusive or 56.25/156.25 = 36%. But it really works out to a 56% tax using the traditional and understood sales tax methodology of $100 *1.56 = $156.

I guess they are hoping that the math challenged and generally ignorant masses won't be able to figure this out. They are somewhat better at multiplication than long division so they won't know the real story til they get home. It oughta be great in the stores. Hell half the clerks can't even figure out the change to return using addition and subtaction if the cash register doesn't tell them. Division is gonna pose a big challenge. :rofl:

Tax-Inclusive Rate ... what ********. I certainly hope that you haven't bought into this 56% tax rate plan.

So anybody that's thinking a 10% rate will make it fair ..... you are WAY OFF the mark. BOHICA !!!!

[thathotrodlincn]

Charlie,
I do not want to get into a discussion of the particulars of the proposal.however, your examples are a little off. An item that now cost $100 retail would still cost the same $100 +/- including the 23% tax. This would include the various in process taxes imposed in the various subsales through the production/manufacturing/intermediate sales prior to the final retail sales. The actual retail item price would decline by virtue of the elimination of these tax "bites" along the way/ The primary implication would be that there would be no withholding, an individual would keep their entire paycheck with no federal holdbacks od any kind. Also, the Congress would be less able to "buy" votes by steering money to encourage voters for various reasons. In my opinion, this may not be the best venue to expound on this theme, and it may be somewhat of an hyjack of the thread. If so, for that I sincerely apologize.

[Bluerauder]

In my opinion, this may not be the best venue to expound on this theme, and it may be somewhat of an hyjack of the thread. If so, for that I sincerely apologize.

Naaah. It's completely in line with the spirit of the thread and just another example of how the 545 elites continue to try to pull the wool over the eyes of the 300 Million.

[FreddieH]

Check out some of these Presidential salaries.

http://www.paywizard.org/main/VIPPaycheck/politiciansalaries

[duhtroll]

You make several good points ^^^^^^ above. However, I take exception to the some of your statements as noted.

I can see that and would like to agree with you. However, the whole of human history shows explicitly that humans with wealth and power cannot be trusted to think about anyone but themselves.

I did not say all - I said most, and I am correct. Many people of "true virtue" fell to corruption once they acquired power.

I am not saying how things should be in this case - I am saying how things are.

As for how things should be, groups of any kind have no (moral) business influencing politics directly. That is the main problem with our system right now. It takes $100+ MILLION to run for president. not many "common men" can come up with that.

[duhtroll]

Eliminate income taxes altogether - make everything a sales tax of some sort. The more you buy, the more you pay. :D

[CBT]

Eliminate income taxes altogether - make everything a sales tax of some sort. The more you buy, the more you pay. :D

Hmmm....I actually like that idea.

[Joe Walsh]

VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS THAT HAVE BEEN IN WASHINGTON FOR MORE THAN 2 TERMS!

Because we the voters can never actually accomplish the relatively simple task of voting out these leeches:

TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS

(WOW! What a unique idea! 2 terms then BYE BYE! :wave:....Just like the Presidency.)

BTW: I love the 'Flat Tax'/"run government like a private business on a budget" ideas......but it'll NEVER happen!
Anything that would decimate the IRS, reduce govenment's size and put lots of lawyers out of business is just a great dream.

[LIGHTNIN1]

Heard this on late nite TV, I think Jimmy Fallon. He thought the administration had taken care of lowering income taxes by stamping out income. One solution.

[MrBluGruv]

Eliminate income taxes altogether - make everything a sales tax of some sort. The more you buy, the more you pay. :D


Man I have been saying that for so long.


Down here in San Antonio (well, in the southwest in general), we have a pretty big problem with illegal aliens. It's not opinion, just known fact. And we also get a lot of nationals that come up to shop here during holidays.

Easy way to generate huge revenues while reducing tax strain on citizens? Proportionately swap rates from income and property tax and such to sales tax.

But then of course that might run off some of our *ahem* voter base. ;)