$10,000 Sound Good To You?: Rad This Blog

I have decided to start a new movement, which should be much more popular than that Occupy Wall Street fiasco featureing mainly Marxist leftists and the homeless. In 1972, George McGovern promised $10,,000 to every person, every year, from teh Federal Government. He was ahead of his time. $1,,000 dollars then is not much different from $10,000 now..


Want to get rid of the Federal welfare bureaucracy? No bureaucracy. Simply cut a Treasury check for everyone who files a tax return with the IRS, whether they made any money or not. Worried about the "rich" getting the money as well as the poor? Don't. They will be simply paying the money to themselves, as tehy will be paying all of the taxes. Poverty? We will put a large dent in it. Maybe we would have to make it $12,000, or $15,000, but we could REPLACE essentially every Federal welfare program with this simple payment. How can you turn down $10,000 per year? No student grants or government loans. No earned income tax credit (which uses this principle, but on obviouisly too small a scale). Forget about the Social Security tax/payroll tax "cut". All taken care of. Who needs $1,000, when we can give you $10,000, in installments over the entire year.


What? You say this is insane? Why? As this blog has shown, the Obama/GOP (hey, the GOP JUMPED at it as a TEMPORARY STIMUMLUS (lol) at the end of 2010, and still DESPERATELY wants to agree to extend it if the Democrats will only let them in a face saving manner) PAYROLLL TAX CUT is merely an INSTALLMENT PAYMENT over a year. Sure, it is limited (soley to get GOP support) to people who pay Social Security taxes, and the "rich" get more than the poor (not to mentin more than the lederly and others who pay no Social Security tax at all, because they do not work). Did you realize athat OBAMA promoted a tax cut that gave more "evnefit" to the RICH than to the poor? Well, he did. And he did it soley for POLITICAL reasons: to call what is essentailly a McCGOVERN PAYMENT a "taax cut". There was no reason to say that this was a "payroll tax cut" except POLITICS. The advocates of this fraudulent "tax ccut' make clear that they have no intention of taking the funds out of the Social Seucrity system, and yet this particular "tax" is DESIGNATED to fund Social Security. This makes the FRAUD heree obvioius. Since the money is "coming from" (lol--we have to BORROW it) general revenue, it is absolutely no different than a sliding scale PAYMENT from general revenue, exactly like that proposed by George McGovern and enacted as a "stimulus" by Bush, and a Democrat controlled Congress including Obama)--referring to that $600 payment that FAILED to help the economy (just as the payroll tax cut has failed to help the economy in 2011, after being a last second "deal" at the end of 2010. A real "tax cut" actually reduces general tax reates over a long period of time, and does not simply use the Tax Code as a device for determining who gets a WELFAE AYMENT (a McGovern paymetn). No, a Social Secuirty tax cut is NOT really such a tax cut. That is becuase the money is already EARMARKED for an insolvent Social Secruity system that is supposed to be self-funding. All the "tax cut" does is REQUIRE that such money be taken from the peole and used to make up that same funding that is being deliberately sabotaged. Oh, it also has a WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION aspect, which is why DEMOCRATS like, as it tries to turn Social Seucirity into just another welfare system, paid for by the "rich", insteadd of teh seolf-funding system FDR set it up to be. That is what would happen: the h destruction of Social Security as originally contemplated, and ultimately just the destruction of Social Security, IF we turned the "payrll tax cut" into a real "tax cut" instead of a POLITICAL MMICK that already undermines the Social Secruity system.


Okay. You should accept theidea that this "payroll tax cut" is just a PAYMENT, in installments, of an amount of money to people (who being determined by politics) over a year. The idea is to BRIBE people to believe that our "representatives" are doihng someting for them. This is exactly like the McGovern "plan", so long as you understnad that the "payroll/Social Security tax" is mrely a convenient vehicle for determining who gets the payment, and how much they get. The AVERGE is $1000, but--as I stated--the "rich" get more than the poor. WHY do it that way? Oh, comeon. You KNOW this one. The idea is that the BATTLE in American elections is now over the people who either call themselves the "middle class", or expect to be in it some day--even if they are now "the working poor". The truly rich are too few to worry about (a big law in trying to suport the entire government with their taxes), and may vote either way (because they may percieve their self-intrest as involving a PARTNERSHIP--economic fascism--with government, so that the "Occupy Wall Street " types do not have the political clout to do them in. And, they want BAILOUTS> The high income people--again in numbers who do not control elections--who are NOT truly "rich are going to vote for the GOP (mainly). Their ony hope for getting "rich" is for the government to not take so muchof their earnings. The trulyrich do not worry about-within reason--how much the government takes, because they figure on doing comparatively well in all scenarios. The POOR (except the intelligent poor who can look beyond bribery) are generally going to vote Democratic, as the party BRIBING them with promises, unless (as now) the promises are proving to be fool's gold. Still, the Democrats will get most of the "poor" votes. That leaves the peole earning between about $30,000 and 250,000 a year.


ou can see the political "soluton" hre. That "solution" is to BRIBE the people earning between $30,000 and $250,000 a year. The Social Security tax is PERFECT for that. Therfore, we know why it is POLITICALLY better to push for a "payroll tax cut" than a $1000 per person payment. Democrats get their WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION. GOP member can FRADULENTLY claim they are voting for a "tax cut". And BOTH Democrats and GOP politicians get to tell the "middle class" that they have given THEM a BRIBE. The "middle clas" may not like all of this "welfare", and "government handouts" that they suspect they may have to ultimately PAY FOR (as they will), but they sort of like being BRIBBED (see next article about my borther). At least THEY are getting something form the government.


All right. The politics is clear. But WHY not bribe EVERYONE with $10,000 in payments, instead of $1000 for the selected majority (up to $20000 and down to 0, as your employee income goes down)? Well, first, if you bribe everyone, "everyone" sort of realizes that you are bribing NO ONE. The politicians expect ou not to realize that is what is happening now. The por get bribed with endless government programs. The farmers get bribed. The RICH get bribed with bailouts and things like Solyndra A(Obama's "gresn" boondoggle). Farmers get bribed with incredible subsidies. Unions get bribed (think Boeing and South Carolina). Everone IS being bribed. Too many just don't seem to realize it. And the politicians are conting on them not realizing that every bribe is COSTING every person more than the "worth" of the bribe. That is why I cannot accept GOP politicians (or "conservatives") wanting to get on the bribe "gravy train". I could never vote for such a person, even if it helps a leftist Democrat win an election.


Still, you probably think that my $10,000 payment suggetinon is INSANE. Why? I have explained why it is not all that attractive politically, but why is it INSANE? I know the answer to that, and so do you. No, it is not the "prinicple". The "principle" is exaclty the same for $1000 (even on a sliding scale) in cash payments to people as it is for $10,000. There is NO difference. So why does one figure "shock' you into thinking I am nuts, while the lower figure does not. "We can't afford it?" Forget it. You can't get away with that with me. We can't afford teh $1000 dollar payments any more than we can the $10,000 payments. Oh, we go broke FASTER with the $10,000 payments, but it is absurd to say that the distinguishing factor is that we can "afford" $10000 and cannnot "afford" $10,0000. We can't "afford" EITHER, and everyone knows it. The real difference is that it is OBVIOUS that $10,000 in payments--whether disguised like the "apyroll tax cut" or undisguised, like the McGovern $`000--WILL NOT WORK. That is, everyone knows instictivelyl that it is absurd to believe that we can get away with that. Everyone instinctively knnows that it will COST us ALL more than we gain from such a "scheme". Even the POOR will now it (explaining why McGoovern got only 40% of the vote).


Yet, with all of the BRIBRY we are doing--and I am NOT taling aobut the Bush tax cuts, which represent a real cut in TAX RATES, we are doing EXACTLY what you would see was INSANE if we were handing out $10,000 in cash to every person. There is a schol of thought,by the way, that this would be BETTER than all of this government bureaucracy, and in some sense it is true that it woulld be better. The problem is that this whole idea of government giving everyone such cash payments is insane, even if it is WORSE (in may ways) to CONCEAL what we are doing in endless deceptions and bureaucracy. You should be able to see that we really are TRYING to BRIBE EVERYONE, and that this is probably even more insane than giving everone a $10,000 "maintenance" payment every year. The DECEPTION in trying to conceal what we are really doing doubles our problem, even as it makes it harder to convince people what is really happening. Actually, I hink peole KNOW what is happening. They are jsut AFRAID (with some reason that if THEY don't get THEIR bribes, then they will be left out i the cold. That is why it amuses me (so I don't bereak down and cry) when a "conservative" (like Michele Bachmann) is accused of "taking" government money for herself or her district. The "accusation" (from CNN, for example, The Liar Network) is that this is "hypocrisy". Nope. You KNOW that OTHERS are getting the benefit of government money. It HURTS you--for no purpose--to turn down money to which you are ENTITLED. Then you are merely PAYING FOR EVERYONE ELSE TO BE BRIBED. That is what people fear, to the extent they are not taken in by the deception.


Indeed, it does no good to "turn down" government benefits. However, we have to get over the idea that we cannot REJECT the idea that ANYONE (with the obvious, limited, exception of some sort of "safety" net of one sort or another, from one source or another) shouold get these "benefits" hat we cannot afford. We HAVE to realize--rich, middle class and poor alike-that these constant government bribes are COSTING each and every one of us MORE than they are benefitting ANY of us (even if isolated individuals may "benefit" more than others), It is the POLITICIANS, and the "government class", who really expect to "benefit" from these obviously absurd bribes we can't afford. Even they will not beneift in the end, but "the end" to a politician is the NEXT ELECTION.


No. A $10,000 payment is abusrd. But it is no more absurd than an (average) $100 payment, and no more absurd than the TOTAL of bribes we are paying (adding up, surely, to more than $10,000 a year per person, if you take the total and divide it up). Sure, this includes "corporate welfare", which shoud be eliminated as part of a TAX REOFRM simplification of the Tax Code. But things like the "payrol tax cut" and "green subsidies" keep COMPLICATING the Tax Cde further, even as we SAY we want to "simplifiy it. Are we really that STUPID that we have to deceive OURSELVES? Maybe we are. The people are now ahead of the politicians, specificallly incluindg the GOP, but are they ENOUGH ahead to reject these DECEPTIONS like the "payroll tax cut"? I am not usre of that. The AP calls this a "popular program", along with the equally ridiculous 99 weeeks of unemopoyment insurance. Now all the AP uputs out is PROPAGANDA< and therefore I take this with a grain of salt. I especially don't believe it is necearrily ture if someone (the GOP has not TRIED) with influence actually EXPLAINED why the "payroll tax cut" is a fraud. It is hard to blame the people in general, who do not think about these things because they are too busy leading their lives, for not seeing through the deceptins of the MEDIA and BOTH PARITES. I am enough of an optimist, barely, to belive that the people would make the right choice if SOMEONE was explaining to them what their choice really is. There is a REASON that Congresss has almost as low an "approval rating" (fraud that such a poll is) as "journalists'.


Again, I can't tell you how stronly I feel on the "payroll tax cut". It is probably the prime facotr in me WALKDING AWAY from the GOOP forever. Even when GOP members of Congress vote "against" extending the "payroll tax cut", they generally do so while saying that they would vote for it if it is "apid for" (another Orewellian Big Lie, as the GOP is NOT proposing really "payng or it"--in or out of the Social Secuirty system, which would involve actually "paying for" the entire government, which is the ony way we would be "paying for " a payroll tax cut").


Sigh.


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).