Tag Archive: politics

The wonderful Declaration of Independence is still in effect today. It has not passed away, no matter that it is over two centuries old. The fundamentals are still strong and solid, even though they are ignored on a regular basis by our leaders. But, that’s another post altogether.

The Declaration of Independence (DoI) is the “why” of America. It defines us, as a nation. Nothing that comes after can contradict it. If the country were a corporation, this would be the mission statement. The Constitution is the “how.” For a corporation, that would be the by-laws. As with a corporation, the by-laws cannot contradict the mission statement. Thus, the Constitution could not contradict the Declaration…and neither may any lower laws.

Has this always been followed to a “T”? Nope. But, it has been followed much more closely than it is today. In fact, starting with Woodrow Wilson (can’t STAND that guy!!), the elites and leaders of the country encouraged people to not even read the entire first part of the DoI, you know, the part that defines where rights come from? Yeah, that part.

Anyway, in the DoI asserts that “all men are created equal…”

So, what did the author and signers of this document mean by “equal”? Did they mean everyone should have the same amount of stuff? Did they mean that everyone has the same attributes, must be seen as equally talented or beautiful, or that they should all have the same likes or dislikes? Let’s read just a bit more.

“…that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…” AHA! A clue! These are rights they are talking about, not stuff. Well, what kind of rights do they discuss? Oh, the suspense!!

“that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Egad, they don’t even mention jobs and houses, do they? Huh. Well, how can everyone be EQUAL if they don’t have the same things, look the same, believe all the same things, live the same way, etc.?

They are equal in the application of laws and freedom to exercise rights. No matter if you are famous, poor, rich, a politician, a lawyer…anyone and everyone…has the right to live. Unless a person has committed a crime, and been found guilty through due process in a court of justice, and that is bad enough to warrant the death penalty, no one can legally kill you. Period. THAT is equality.

No matter how in debt you are, how poor you are, or who rich you are; no matter the color of your skin; and no matter what your religion is, no one can keep you captive, unless you have committed a crime worthy of imprisonment, and only then can it be done by the governing body, never an individual. THAT is equality.

If you have enough money to buy a thing, that is your thing. You have the right to own it, and no one can take it from you, legally. Used to be that the lowest classes had no right to private property ownership. In this country, they made sure to lay into the very foundations of the nation the natural rights that we have been given by our Creator, and in this way, safeguard them from other humans thinking they can just take what is yours.

If you are born poor in this country, and you work hard (and work smart), you can become as rich and influential as you please. Before this country was founded, only those born to money had any hope of ever having a life of leisure. Only those born into certain families had a chance of being able to study what they pleased, unless they had the outstanding fortune of being taken in by a noblewoman who wished to help a poor soul. If every noblewoman did this, that would have been admirable, but there were so many more of the “common folk” that there was no hope for just about everyone else.

THIS is what our DoI is making clear: we are all equal in our Creator’s sight, we have all been given equal rights. There is no hyphen. The Creator did not give women’s rights, minority rights, or any other broken label. He gave EQUAL rights, and the color of your skin, your gender, your bank account balance, and your ethnicity is of no consequences. That’s why the statue of Justice is blindfolded: justice is to be blind, and therefore applied equally.

To do otherwise is to reject the concept of equal rights, and instead institute preferred or lesser classes in a country that was created to do away with classes altogether.

Know where you stand.

And, buy a copy of my book (link to the right, top of the page) and understand the entire DoI…with cartoons…how cool is that?


This amendment seems like it should be awesome! Let’s read Section 1:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Okay, this sounds legit, right? No one, not even state governments, can deprive people of their rights.

The next logical question is: WHO will enforce this? Answer: the federal government. No longer would it be given to the people to do.

This means that, previously, it was up to the actual sovereign (We the People) to make sure The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are followed, not the Feds. With this one fell swoop, it took that sovereignty and gave it to the big boys…who always screw things up. (If you disagree, name ONE THING they have done, that has interfered with the sovereignty of the people, that has turned out well.)

Now, this amendment is awesome because it reiterates what is already in the US Constitution. Here is the original, the 5th amendment:

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

What’s the difference? See how the 5th says NO PERSON shall have these things done to them, and the 14th specifically requires states to be held to this. This is quite different from the 5th, which is incumbent on everyone to follow. It’s a small difference, but it really does matter. See, before, We the People were charged with this responsibility, it was not delegated to the Feds. Did they all live up to it? No!! It was a high bar and people failed miserably.

BUT, it was getting better. I mean, Lincoln was voted in on a platform where one of the first agenda items was abolishing slavery! Granted, this scared the Democrats so much they tried to secede and started a war, but that’s another post altogether.

In other words, the only thing we needed to do, as a nation, was run on platforms that reiterated the need to follow the US Constitution. And, if anyone were to argue that blacks were not persons, they could just take the tact that Lincoln did when debating Douglas: make him prove his assertions. (Hint: he never could).

If you want to read about how Lincoln smoked Douglas in his ridiculous arguments that blacks should be allowed to be enslaved, please comment.

Please feel free to get a copy of my book The Declaration Made Easy by clicking the link at the right. It’s perfect for kids of all ages and really does make this amazing document easy to read! 😀



**updated spelling error 9/10


The 10th Amendment seems to be a point of contention. Many of our statist friends say that this amendment give the federal government free rein to do whatever it wants, citing the part “not prohibited to it” to mean that it is referring to the Federal Government. But, take a moment to apply basic English rules to it, and you’ll see this is in error.

Here is the text, in whole:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

So, we see that we can take out the part offset by commas as it would read: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Easy Peasy! If the powers are not delegated to the US, they are to remain with the states or people. BUT WAIT, THERE’S MORE!

This is where it gets dicey. Statists want the offset portion to be highlighted!! “See?” they say, “If they are not outlined OR if they are not denied specifically to the feds, they can do it!!”

Keep your pantyhose on! Let’s delve into that.

Here is the offset part: “nor prohibited by it to the States”. Oh, whoops. Looks like our statist friends didn’t take enough English classes to understand complex sentence structures.

This reads: “nor prohibited by it [“it” means the US Constitution] TO THE STATES. As Scooby-Doo says, “Ruh-roh!”

The following four statements identify that which is for the feds to do, and that which is for the states:

If a thing is not delegated to the United States Congress, it goes to the states and people. (These are few and defined, and found in Article I for a full list of items they are in charge of handling.)

Regarding the states, if it’s not denied to the states, it belongs with the states and people. (This list is almost endless, save the few things denied to them in Article I – such as making treaties with foreign countries.)

The only thing left for the feds to do is that which is specifically delegated to them by the Constitution, and nothing more.

Thus, the next time a statist says to you, “I don’t see the word healthcare in the Constitution!” You can say, “Exactly!” Maybe you will have time for a quick English lesson or two for them.

Any questions?

John Adams

“I must study Politicks and War that my sons may have liberty to study Painting and Poetry Mathematicks and Philosophy. My sons ought to study Mathematicks and Philosophy, Geography, natural History, Naval Architecture, navigation, Commerce and Agriculture, in order to give their Children a right to study Painting, Poetry, Musick, Architecture, Statuary, Tapestry and Porcelaine.”

~ John Adams in a Letter to Abigail Adams, post 12 May 1780
A dear friend recently told me that she sees me as being all about God, family, and country. I replied in the affirmative. What I didn’t get a chance to tell her is that, while I very much enjoy spending hours each day studying history and economics, I do this because I feel the need to make the case for liberty in this country as so many have never even given it a second thought. I never used to, but now I KNOW what’s going on and it’s crappy.
I would love to read more fiction and literature, spend more time playing, or cleaning my house (okay, that one’s a lie…), but I feel that, being one who sees what our country is headed for, I have the duty to share the knowledge I’ve gained.
It’s not a pretty picture, either. Try that one on for size. I have no message of “Don’t worry!! If we can just beat those [fill in political party here]’s in the next election, everything will be FINE!!” Nope.  My message is, “If we don’t change our mores and see how we are flushing our remaining liberties down the toilet, as a country, we’re toast as a civilization.”
Yeah, I’m a hoot at dinner parties…
But, I do it so that people will again have conversations in this country that start out with, “Gee whiz, about that new legislation they are looking to pass, I wonder what the real ramifications will be?” instead of, “How could anyone want GUNS in the hands of CRIMINALS??” as if that’s what anyone wants.
I do it so that my kids will be able to live in a land whose laws are not based on envy of what others have. I do it so that we can have a discussion based on facts, not feelings. I do it so we can restore the Declaration of Independence (totally buy my book for more on that – just click on the link to the right!!) and the US Constitution. I do it so people will take the time to truly understand what those documents mean and why abolitionists back in the day, like Republican Frederick Douglass in June of 1863, said things like this:Frederick Douglass
“Let me tell you something. Do you know that you have been deceived and cheated? You have been told that this government was intended from the beginning for white men, and for white men exclusively; that the men who formed the Union and framed the Constitution designed the permanent exclusion of the colored people from the benefits of those institutions. Davis, Taney and Yancey, traitors at the south, have propagated this statement, while their copperhead echoes at the north have repeated the same. There never was a bolder or more wicked perversion of the truth of history. So far from this purpose was the mind and heart of your fathers, that they desired and expected the abolition of slavery. They framed the Constitution plainly with a view to the speedy downfall of slavery. They carefully excluded from the Constitution any and every word which could lead to the belief that they meant it for persons of only one complexion.The Constitution, in its language and in its spirit, welcomes the black man to all the rights which it was intended to guarantee to any class of the American people. Its preamble tells us for whom and for what it was made.”
If a runaway slave with no formal education can dissect and grasp the principles of the US Constitution, so can we, daggumit!
And, that’s why I write this blog. Please share it with everyone. Then, buy my book. We have a country to save!

Socialism Making Poor Since 1917

First we have to start out with a little background. Socialism works off the initial premise that there is no such thing as private property. What you earn, what you own, your house, your clothes, all of it…not really yours. This is in direct opposition to our country’s basic laws on private property…as in, it exists and, aside from protecting us from enemies foreign and domestic, the government’s entire reason for existing is protecting our right to life, liberty, and private property. So, start there.


Now, we can move on to a statement from a self-avowed Socialist, who also happens to be an elected representative in our US House of Representatives, Bernie Sanders. (Gee, that’s not a conflict of interest, is it??)

“When Social Security was developed in the 1930s, its goal was to cut down on senior poverty. And when it was developed, 50 percent of seniors lived in poverty. Today, poverty amongst seniors is too high, but that number is 10 percent. Social Security has done exactly what it was designed to do.”

“I will be damned if they’re going to cut Social Security,” Sanders added.


First and foremost, we have to ask…WHY are so many people in poverty at this point? What terrible calamities have transpired that this is so??


Answer: The policies of the Federal Government had made people poorer than they would otherwise be.


People say the Great Depression started with the crash of 1929. Not so. There was already a recovery underway (a real one, not like the fake-y one we have now). Then, Hoover decide to “DO SOMETHING!” and threw a bunch of money at the problem (sound familiar? Stimulus, anyone?). Once he started that, things got worse again and stayed that way because of continued policies until they had to call it the “Great Depression.”


FDR came in and decided to keep on spending like a drunken sailor. This lead his very own Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau to say,

“We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. . . . We have never made good on our promises. . . . I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. . . . And an enormous debt to boot!”


So, we can see that, the spending helped nothing, and just made matters worse. To spend this money, it had to take it from the very people who would otherwise have been creating jobs and investing in the economy in a positive way, namely YOU. Yet, they talked like all this government spending was going to make things better!!


This is like someone bashing you in the leg, then mending it by covering up the wound without actually treating it, and telling you to be grateful they were there to save your leg while it festers and rots under the cover!


Now, back to Social Security. We now know that SS was made to “help” the poor, horribly oppressed old people, right? WRONG!

It was set up to not even take effect until years after it started (sounds like Obamacare!). They taxed and taxed, and said that 6 years later, people would start getting benefits. Well, not A LOT of benefits. Just a little. And, you had to be just about dead before you got them.  But, the promise of benefits seemed to make people feel better about living in crapola land.

Life expectancy rates at the time would have gotten you a whopping 3.8 years of benefits after paying in your whole life. Sounds great, right?!

Well, lives got longer and they didn’t really change the age level. Had they kept it in line with the original deal, people would be more likely to realize the scam being played on them, but it also would have been stable.

What they don’t realize at this point is that there is no way to sustain the payments they’ve been lead to believe they are guaranteed. But, the government has a nasty secret…

They’ve already spent your money, my money, the baby boomer’s money…you get the idea. It’ s ALL GONE. It’s now a Ponzi scheme of epic proportions. Bernie Madoff would be proud. They pay out benefits with the current tax dollars coming in. This is why there is the myth going around that SS would be dandy if all those pesky baby boomers would stop retiring (see the MYTH and the actual state of things below, courtesy of my friend, and man of extraordinary intelligence, Rex Rawlinson).

At this point, anyone who thinks that Social Security is going to stay on its current course is willfully ignorant. If you think it was made to actually help the government-impoverished old people, you can add that to the list of ways to be ignorant.

It was a gimmick. It’s still a gimmick. But, now it’s a gimmick that is actually bankrupting the entire nation, instead of just being broke in and of itself. If we tweak the gimmick by making people wait a total of two years to “retire” on SS, it could be extended. But, Socialists like Sanders, will always keep their heads buried in the sand.


MYTH: The Social Security Program was a success until baby boomers began retiring, and there were fewer people paying in and more taking benefits out. Actually, the original social security tax rate was 1% in 1937, increasing to 3% by 1949, on both employees and employers, total 6%, and benefits were not taxed. By 2013 the tax rate had increased to 6.2% on each of employees and employers, total 12.4%, and the base had increased from $3,000.00 to $113, 700. Gradually since 1937 the social security tax rate has increased over 6 times while the base has increased 37.9 times. That’s not a formula of success. Social security benefits, originally tax-free, are now subject to tax on up to 85%.

REALITY: SOCIAL SECURITY HAS ALWAYS BEEN A FAILURE. It has been broke from the first day it started, which is why social security taxes have always increased at a frightening pace. Look at it this way. You start selling balloons for a penny, and now you’re charging ten dollars a balloon. That’s the real social security story. Sure it’ll never go broke as long as you keep raising taxes to pay for it, but don’t blame it on baby boomers. This Ponzi scheme has been an expensive failure from day one.

Recently, I asked my father to sum up, in his words, the projected spending and tax cuts that the Congress now does with their budget numbers.



Keep in mind that most businesses project their budgets out 5 years when looking at the future of the company to get a feel for what can happen. They know that any shorter and they’ll miss the forest for the trees, and any longer out and their predictions will be as good as the weatherman’s are.


Here is my father’s response after expounding on the ridiculous notion of a budget “cut” that I discussed in the last post.

“Just when you think it can’t get any worse, it does.  About a decade ago, Congress went from a 5 year projected budget to a 10 year projection.  Never mind that we have never, ever projected even one year’s spending with any accuracy whatsoever.  The ten-year process allows discussion of truly phantom numbers because no congress can bind another’s decisions.  There will be at least four elections between what the budget projects and what is actually approved when the last set of elected officials vote the final installment.  There is no way to hold anyone accountable today for spending tomorrow.  Nice arrangement.”


You got that? They suck so badly at predicting spending and revenue, they EXTENDED how far out they’ll be wrong. It gets better…

“This also allows congress to project huge savings in the distant future.  Listen carefully—additional spending will always be proposed in the earliest one or two years while additional cuts will always be scheduled for the last year or two of the projection.  So on average, the budget will look sort of balanced.  It’s funny how those cuts never seem to materialize.”


Ok, so it seems that we have this GREAT system where the spending increases always happen, but the cuts? Not so much. Yet, they can CLAIM that they have made cuts. Klassy Congress…real klassy.


So, when they stand up and blather on about how “draconian” the cuts will be…they ALL know they are fibbing. Every single stinking one of them.But, they figure YOU are stupid enough to buy their crap. Well, are you?You can either keep on believing the MSM and those in government who spew this nonsense and shut your eyes to the truth, in which case, you are as useful an idiot as they wish you to be, or you can face the truth and WAKE UP! Then, wake up your neighbor. We have a country to save.

Bush-Obama Spending Spike

Can anyone look at this and not see how insane the spending is? And, the insanity gets worse when you see just how stupid those in government think you are. Read on.


Imagine you are doing your budget for next year. You want to know what your expenditures are going to be, roughly, and you use last year’s budget for a reference.



Each year you have added 5% increased spending, as a matter of course, no matter what inflation is, or any other considerations.  You just add that spending in there, yep, regardless of your income.


Well, your revenues (income) have increased each year some, but your spending has blown that out of the water. Now, it’s time to look at what needs to be done.


You already work full-time, and have a part-time job. Your wife works, and you’ve taken all the money you can from your teenagers who work, but you still are short. You figure you don’t need sleep! Your job performance won’t be affected at all, right??


Let’s presume your wife talks you down and you realize that your spending is what is out of control. (This will likely never happen in politician land, but just work with me). So, you decide to see about not spending so much, since you make $100,000 a year, but spend $146,000 each year.


Now, you come up with this amazing plan. Instead of increasing the budget another 5% next year, you decide to increase it only 2.5%.


Your kids go nuts!! What are you, crazy?? You’re cutting spending by HALF!!! How will we live?! What are you? Some kind of horrible guy that wants us to live in squalor and die on the floor?!


You see how your spending is NOT, in fact, being cut? You see how your spending is STILL INCREASING and that you will have to borrow even more money just to keep up with current levels of spending, let alone what you’ll add?


Yeah, that’s how our government does budget math, in part. The discussions of “draconian cuts”? Yeah, that’s percentages of cuts on the assumed increase.


Oh, and, there’s more to come, in future posts, about budgeting government style. Are you still going to buy into their lies?


You can either keep on believing the MSM and those in government who spew this nonsense and shut your eyes to the truth, in which case, you are as useful an idiot as they wish you to be, or you can face the truth and WAKE UP! Then, wake up your neighbor. We have a country to save.

Wow!! The unemployment rate went down to 7.7%! Isn’t that great?!?!


In a word: no. And, here’s why – they count like they have been drinking for 7 days straight.


You would think that the unemployment rate would count all those who are unemployed, right? Well, you’d be wrong. The rate everyone (including the mainstream media – in an effort to get some crumbs thrown to them by their master) quotes counts…get ready…ONLY THOSE WHO ARE CURRENTLY DRAWING UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS.


Ask me if they count those who have been unemployed so long they are ineligible for more benefits, or the people who have taken jobs flipping burgers part-time when they have bachelor’s degrees. Go ahead. Ask me. The answer is NO!!


As my friend Kathryn Tyler (who posted the articles used in this post) puts it, “DECEPTION: FEWER people have jobs, but the Obama Administration reports an improved unemployment rate.” It is deception.


Now you know how they make the rate go down!! They just stop counting those who have just dropped out of the work force because they can’t get unemployment anymore, and they also can’t find a job. Technically, they are unemployed, but you can’t seriously think the MEDIA would be bothered with details, now, can you? Of course not, they have a president to protect.


After saying in the first paragraph that this report was good news, CNBC reports further down in the article, “The labor force participation rate, already around 30-YEAR LOWS, fell further in the month to 63.6%. That represented 350,000 FEWER workers…” and “The government managed to get the unemployment rate down by shrinking the labor force.”


Oh, is that all? They just quit counting people who don’t have jobs?? That IS good news, CNBC! No wonder your readership is growing mightily!! Oh, it’s not? Huh.


Anyway, here is a graph showing how many people are in the work force.

Labor Force Participation Rate Chart from Zerohedge.com

Labor Force Participation Rate Chart from Zerohedge.com


Gosh. That doesn’t look like a recovery at all, does it? Well, now you know. You can either keep on believing the MSM and those in government who spew this nonsense and shut your eyes to the truth, in which case, you are as useful an idiot as they wish you to be, or you can face the truth and WAKE UP! Then, wake up your neighbor. We have a country to save.

Here’s the situation. There is THE FISCAL CLIFF!!! and it’s coming up. Republicans don’t want to raise taxes, especially since they are staking their reputations on this pledge that they made not to do that.


We have Obama, who says NO MATTER WHAT, there will be no deal without tax increases. (Of course, the lap-dog media only reports the Republican’s ultimatum, but whatever…).


Now, you and I know that it’s all about spending. The tax rates Obama and his guys (and gals!) are calling for will not even make a dent in the deficit, let alone the debt. The “draconian cuts” are a joke and are not the issue, or the problem, really.


So, what are we left with? An impasse, it seems. OR…


The Republicans could just walk away. Now, what does that entail? It means they say loudly and often, and to whomever will listen and then some, “Obama and Democrats. We quit this discussion. We will not agree to raise taxes, so you put together your proposal and we’ll be forced to vote on that.”


Then, they could be*cough, cough* sick on the day of the vote, vote “present,” like dear leader did so many times, or just boycott the proceedings publicly and with great aplomb.


This accomplishes three things:

1. The cliff will be dealt with in whatever manner the Democrats want. They will, once again, have no restrictions for their plan.

2. The Republicans won’t have to go back on their word, sort of. It’s honest enough for a politician, right?

3. The Democrats won’t have anyone to blame but themselves when it doesn’t work, and if the Republicans were smart (I know, I know…) they would shout this from the rooftops.


But, this is but a pipe dream. This requires that Republicans have a spine, which they don’t; that they have a firm belief that their way is better, which they don’t, apparently; and the political savvy to pull this off, which they have demonstrated they don’t. I mean, they didn’t even consistently and loudly report of the cover up about Benghazi when there was an American Ambassador DEAD along with three other Americans and probably the most important election in decades to win. You think they’ll get some intestinal fortitude over taxes? Think again…


However, if there WERE some kind of Divine Intervention and they all decided to follow this plan, this is what would happen: the Democrats would all of a sudden care MORE about partisanship than fulfilling their deepest desires. They would cancel the vote.


I ask you this: if you have a deep, core value, like not raising taxes in a time of economic trouble because you KNOW it will hurt people, do you really CARE if anyone else agrees with the idea? Would you really stop all votes to make sure some Democrats will agree with you before going ahead? No. You would cast your vote for no increase in taxes like a flash of lightning because you KNOW it’s the right thing to do. But, that’s the exact argument the Democrats use when they do things like cancelling the vote and complain about a lack of partisanship.


Because of this, you can rest assured that the Democrats do NOT want partisanship…they want someone to blame besides themselves.


You can know this is true because when they had control of both houses AND the white house, the Democrats did NOT get a measure passed that increased taxes solely on “the rich.” It failed 194 to 233. That’s a lot of Democrats who voted no, even though they needed ZERO votes from ANY Republican to pass that measure. Why would they balk then and yet have no compunction of accusing the Republicans of holding them hostage now that they have lost the House? Exactly. They needed someone to blame.


They should have kept in mind that, as the saying goes, when they point one finger at the Republicans, there are three pointing back at them.


Too bad the Republicans seem to only know how to navel gaze when faced with this situation. Good job guys*.

*I hope you’re catching the sarcasm in that statement. I was laying it on pretty thick.

Is “The Fiscal Cliff!!!” really about the tax rates for the top “RICH”? In a word, no.


The amount of money that would be collected from the people the Democrats call to have taxed (while the rest stay at their current tax rates) would be negligible, IF all the expected revenue were brought in as planned.


Watch this from my senator as to just how little this tax revenue this would bring in:

Now, the Mainstream Media would have us believe that all would be well if we adopted the Democrats’ tax hikes, and it’s the EVIL Republicans (who just won’t break their pledge to not vote for tax increases, those fiends!) that are holding the well-being of America hostage. OH, THE HORROR!!!


What they are missing is that  1. Obama just said there would be no deal unless tax increases were included (don’t hold your breath waiting for the MSM to berate him on this); 2.Tax increases tend to mean lowered revenue (e.g. income to the government from taxes). This is because the wealth goes into hiding (tax shelters, non-taxable bonds, overseas, etc.); and 3. that means less investment and fewer jobs.


So, the “middle class” might keep their current tax rates, but they’d have to have a job to enjoy them.


There is a Fiscal Cliff, but the government could confiscate ALL income over $200,000 and still only run the government for a month or so.  It’s the spending that will take us over the cliff…but that’s an unpopular fact, so it doesn’t get reported. Don’t be a pawn in the game. Know your facts and stick with them.

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
John Adams, ‘Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials,’ December 1770
US diplomat & politician (1735 – 1826)
%d bloggers like this: