The Greatest Lie Ever Told

              

              

                The top marginal tax rate in 1981 was 70% (that’s a seven with a zero to the right of it!). The top marginal tax rate in 1989 was 31%.

                Total tax revenues for 1981? $500 billion. Total tax revenues for 1989? $915 billion. These are the government’s own figures, from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Yes, as with JFK’s tax cut, and in keeping with historical trends, when it is profitable to invest in business, expand or start new businesses, unemployment plummets, more people are added to the tax rolls and  more income (wealth) is generated to be taxed (albeit it at a lower rate…can you say “win-win”).

                This is a totally seperate issue from what the government decides to spend.

                It is logically impossible, literally insane (look these words up in your dictionary) to state that simply because deficits grew after a tax cut that the tax cuts themselves were to blame. (Though I can hear James Carville blathering, “If it looks like trailer trash and walks like trailer trash…it just might be…trailer trash!”).

                Yeah, well, I knew a guy that was a heavy smoker that lived to be 94 years old. Obviously smoking led to his longer life?

                Let’s look at it this way: a fellow makes $24,000 a year slaving away at his current job. He becomes outspoken on the issues of the day, and this articulate, astute, determined man becomes a champion of the underclass. He’s elected to congress and now makes (above-the-table) $125,000 a year.

                After years of struggling to make ends meet (he was about $10,000 in debt when elected), he know thinks, “I’m gonna get me some stuff, baby!”

                After a few years in congress, he’s developed a taste for the ‘good life’. Owns a nice enough home ‘back home’ and has a little place in the D.C. area. He’s also developed a taste for cocaine. Yeah, costs a lot, but makes me him feel so good at the moment. And call girls, too. He’s earned it, right? Struggling selflessly every day with ‘the people’s problems’. Needs a little release.

                He eventually finds himself in debt to the tune of…oh, oh… a coupla hundred grand.

                Should he (occupations aside) have refused the $101,000 per year pay hike? Was it the fact that he more than quadrupled his salary that got him  further into debt? Post hoc, ergo propter hoc? No, It is spending that is the problem.

                Giving some of our money back via tax-cuts is a ‘risky spending scheme’ according to some politicians??!

               “We simply can’t afford a tax cut”, many of these same politicians say. This is the most disgusting and perverted, nonsensical, banal, hypocritical, opposite-of-reality, anti-Constitutional, totalitarian, self-serving, economy-killing, narcissistic statement I’ve ever heard.

                And I  think I’ve understated it.

                Money taken from us under threat of incarceration, often demonstrably spent in ways which, at least in the long run, make things worse for many, or most, not better?

                 I’ve always wanted a Lamborghini Countach. (And a unicorn).  I can’t afford one. So I took my neighbors. He says he’d like it back. I told him I simply can’t afford to give it back. Wouldn’t be prudent at this time, given my financial obligations and such, to engage in that kind of a ‘risky spending scheme’.

                Don’t let anyone get away with this bold-faced lie, America! How stupid do these ‘representatives’ think they’ve made us? Government produces no real  wealth. To the contrary, It simply confiscates our money, spends it inefficiently and often in a biased, prejudicial manner…and blames us and shames us, the givers, if ever we  want some of it back or want less taken from us in the first place!

               When you are spending money taken from other people you do not have the right to say, "I/we can't afford to spend any less". (Or take any less...or 'give' any of it back).

               And you certainly don't have the right to say we need to spend much more of other people's money than we are currently- on this, that and the other thing- and then turn around and say to those people, "we can't afford to take any less from you. Sniff."

                Businesses are taxed lustily, as are many of the people whose jobs these businesses provided. Nearly everything they and their employees purchase is taxed. (And yet, many give large amounts of money to charitable causes). All this to invent and produce the goods and services (including the medicinal breakthroughs that save lives, the pharmaceuticals that they are not supposed to make much money on anymore) on which all of us depend. And then, of course, the government will tax many successful entities yet again when they/it dies, just for old times sake!

                And business is called greedy??!!!

                Governments exist first and foremost to grow government. And shrink their citizens. Remember the Third Reich, the Soviet Union? Cuba, China, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Albania, Syria, the Obama Administration?

                For a brief, shining moment we were the exception to this. But we have lost our collective memory. We, apparently, voted for a 'fundamental transformation'... from freedom, honor, success and dignity.  Wake up, America! We had a revolution, in part, because of a rather insignificant tax on tea.