Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Jim I'm not sure what to say except that violence is not the answer,

Curious as to what your opinion would be as to why the 2nd amendment was included.

and that we take T Jefferson out of context when we use the blood of tyrant's quote. Jefferson who was in Paris having a wonderful time did not have the same sense of urgency as those men who met in Philadelphia. They knew the Articles of Confederation, with its weak central government spelled the doom of the fledgling country. Early America was barely governable.



Shay's rebellion was the topic at hand and the writer pointed to the fact that the Confederacy was unable to do anything to put down the revolt, hence the need for a strong Federal government. TJ was of the opinion that Shay's rebellion was virtually nothing, just a bunch of misguided citizens who needed to be educated. And that educated citizens would understand. Besides as TJ saw it the so-called revolt was easily put down with little loss of life. Hence the framers over reacted. When TJ realized it might cost him a job in a President Washington's administration, he didn't stand behind that statement.

Oddly enough Thomas Jefferson was such a prolific writer and often contradictory he is claimed by virtually every political ideology in the U.S. But the one thing we know about President Jefferson was that he in no way tolerated even a hint of revolt. Without a SCOTUS opinion Aaron Burr would have been locked up without recourse.

If there is some aspect of Federal action that you abhor, I suggest that you organize PEACEABLE protest. If anyone uses violence against the Federal Government they will not succeed.

I suspect that there are enough people who would support the federal government just like there were people willing to support Hitler, Stalin, Mao. Idi Amin and others thru history. In recent history, here in the US, look to Waco and Ruby Ridge.

If multiple States with an organized Army and Navy could not succeed against the Federal Government neither can a cabal of private citizens.

All this proves is an agricultural society does not stand a chance against an industrial society


As for the current political parties, if you don't agree with their actions or platforms, join another party with which you agree, and work from the lowest to the highest level to elect officials to your liking.

I was chastized by some some individual on this site for being patronising, maybe he will do the same for you. You know as well as I do the political system has been subverted. Both parties are in disagreement during election periods about everything except changing the corrupt system.


One thing we all can do is demand transparency from those who contribute to any political campaign or political organization. SCOTUS has opined that money is the equivalent of speech and corporations are the equivalent of individuals, so they may spend freely on political campaigns without limits. That opinion is not likely to change. What SCOTUS did not opine was that the speaker, i.e. the one donating the money had a right to anonymity under the 1st Amendment. So we should demand that ALL political contributions be transparent. If a voice speaker has no right of secrecy when making a political speech, neither should a monetary contributor.

The SCOTUS/ federal court system is just as corrupt as Congress

Kreutz wrote:

zephyp wrote:@ Kreutz - its not federally funded...only part...we pay a share too just like any other employee would in private corporation.

So...who pays the other part?

My employer which happens to be the federal government...and btw I dont enjoy benefits better than most private corporations. As a matter of fact I accepted a pay cut and a radical reduction of benefits in 2005 when I left a private firm to join federal service...

AND BEFORE any starts spouting rhetoric about how we should not get any benefits and have our pay reduced so we suffer the same fate as our counterparts in private industry -- my counterparts in private industry have enjoyed the same benefits and increased pay during the past 2 years...the fact is they are well ahead of me economically...

zephyp wrote:

Kreutz wrote:

zephyp wrote:@ Kreutz - its not federally funded...only part...we pay a share too just like any other employee would in private corporation.

So...who pays the other part?

My employer which happens to be the federal government..

So...the taxpayer...supports you. Hmm.

I like the idea of stripping all benefits from all public employees. After of course your unions were busted up for posterity.

If you people had to put up with what we (small business owners) did, you'd see why we favor universal healthcare.

@Kreutz - yeah and I'm not a member of any union and dont support them at all.

Here's a good one for ya. Some, not all, but some of us are indeed essential to the defense and protection of the country and citizens therein. If we get stripped of pay and all benefits then you will get left with yahoos, twits, laggards, and dweebs...no one worth their salt will want to stay. Maybe a few die hard patriots but even we get fed up eventually.

And yes, I know there are many twits, etc already in government. Lets find a constructive way to run them off - not the good folks who are actually doing the work of the citizens...

Think McFly THINK!!!

zephyp wrote:@Kreutz - yeah and I'm not a member of any union and dont support them at all.

Here's a good one for ya. Some, not all, but some of us are indeed essential to the defense and protection of the country and citizens therein. If we get stripped of pay and all benefits then you will get left with yahoos, twits, laggards, and dweebs...no one worth their salt will want to stay. Maybe a few die hard patriots but even we get fed up eventually.

And yes, I know there are many twits, etc already in government. Lets find a constructive way to run them off - not the good folks who are actually doing the work of the citizens...

Think McFly THINK!!!

Thats the thing...the fedgov is the largest employer, something even a socialist like me finds unteneable!

You guys should get crap pay and good benefits, or good pay and crap benefits...thing is "public" employees, thanks to their unions get both. We pay for it.

http://173.201.187.68/state/do-njs-publ ... unterparts

According to USA TODAY correspondent Dennis Cauchon, his paper analyzed the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) 2008 report-the most recent available. In eight of 10 occupations, including accountants, nurses, chemists, surveyors, cooks, clerks and janitors, federal employees out-earned their private-sector counterparts.

The federal government paid two million civilian employees about $224 billion in 2008 in compensation. The BLS revealed an average $67,691 for federal workers; like occupation private industry workers averaged $60,046. The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) claims these numbers exclude health, pension and other benefits, averaging $40,785 per federal employee vs. $9,882 per private worker.

So the FedGovs get an average of (as of 2008) $108,476 with benefits while us fools get and average of $69,928...a difference of $38,548.

AND you get that rock solid job security.

yeah, I hope you all get gutted en masse. no offense.

@Kreutz - FYI, I've been serving my country now since March 1977. I spent 6 years on active duty and most of the rest as a Federal civilian. I've sacrificed MUCH through the years a sucked up alot of BS merely because I WANTED TO SERVE MY COUNTRY...unlike many twits who bash our country and those who CHOOSE TO SERVE....I'm not in it for the money or the benefits or the job security...if you have any inkling what my current and other assignments have been like you would know that it is a sacrifice....

Bottom line is this (and I dont give a rats crap WHO pays for it)...I've given up alot and chosen this route to serve...why should I be compared to twits who chose the "easy" way and to stay in private industry because they didnt want to be married to the government and told when to stand up, sit down, shut up, or take a crap....

And the notion that private industry gets a lot less dont cut it with me because I know BECAUSE I'VE WORKED FOR PRIVATE INDUSTRY....

where in my profession THE PAY AND BENEFITS FAR OUTSTRIP MINE TODAY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

So, my socialist colleague, please kindly find a corner, sit down, and color....

Kreutz wrote:

zephyp wrote:@Kreutz -
And yes, I know there are many twits, etc already in government. Lets find a constructive way to run them off - not the good folks who are actually doing the work of the citizens...

Think McFly THINK!!!

Thats the thing...the fedgov is the largest employer, something even a socialist like me finds unteneable!

You guys should get crap pay and good benefits, or good pay and crap benefits...thing is "public" employees, thanks to their unions get both. We pay for it.

http://173.201.187.68/state/do-njs-publ ... unterparts

According to USA TODAY correspondent Dennis Cauchon, his paper analyzed the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) 2008 report-the most recent available. In eight of 10 occupations, including accountants, nurses, chemists, surveyors, cooks, clerks and janitors, federal employees out-earned their private-sector counterparts.

The federal government paid two million civilian employees about $224 billion in 2008 in compensation. The BLS revealed an average $67,691 for federal workers; like occupation private industry workers averaged $60,046. The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) claims these numbers exclude health, pension and other benefits, averaging $40,785 per federal employee vs. $9,882 per private worker.

So the FedGovs get an average of (as of 2008) $108,476 with benefits while us fools get and average of $69,928...a difference of $38,548.

AND you get that rock solid job security.

yeah, I hope you all get gutted en masse. no offense.

***********************************************************************************
Hopefully most of the rancor directed at Federal employees is mostly tongue and check. But first something about unions. I'm amazed when rank and file employees proudly proclaim I'm not in a union, and I hate unions. They don't, however, also proudly proclaim and I'm rejecting all those benefit earned by unions for almost all American workers.

The anti-union mantra is music to the ears of upper level management. They love it when employees willing throw themselves to the mercy and munificence of the bosses. The bosses couldn't ask for more as employees gleefully announce that they are way above wanting any involvement in decisions concerning wages, benefits, working conditions, working hours, firing and hiring, profit distributions, processes, procedures. Never mind the fact that grandfathers, and great grand fathers of these workers paid sometimes in blood for the rights that most enjoy today. So the bosses say trust us, and the anti-union workers say YES SIR BOSS! This is akin to the serf/royalty relationship. If it wasn't for that pesky guvmint the individual American worker would have no rights at all!

No wonder the American worker now brings up the rear in the developed world in all manner of work related issues, excepting productivity where the bosses demand that workers do more with less. The stagnation and real decline of wages pretty much tracks with the decline of unions.

Examples abound of what happens when workers are left to the mercy of bosses. The latest report show the stark differences between union coal mines and Massey's none union mines. Name any category: wages, safety, safety violations, deaths on the job, working conditions, etc, and we find that Massey owned and operated mines were far worst than union mines.

Of course the upper level bosses unlike their anti-union workers would not dream of working for an outfit without a contract that clarifies every aspect of their job. They sure as hell don't trust their bosses, or the board to do the right thing. They get it in writing.

Anyway what's all this let's denigrate and attack government worker crap? On the one hand we demand excellence in the federal workforce, while on the other hand we treat them like little more than chaff. How do you hire and keep a competent workforce when you want to treat them like so many pawns in ideological arguments.

Anyone who has ever worked in both a federal and non-federal job knows that using BLS data to conclude that federal workers are generally paid more than their civilian counterparts is nonsense. Using BLS data for a purpose for which it was never intended is like comparing peanuts to grape fruits, i.e. there is no comparison.

There is no one to one comparison in BLS data. There are for example approximately 2.5 million government workers excluding the armed forces and the Postal Service. There are upwards of 10 million contractors supporting the Feds. You mean someone is trying to tell me that job for job these contractors are paid less than a comparable government worker.

Damn and here I thought my neighbor who used to work for the feds but retired to work for a contractor got a raise in pay for doing essentially the same job. But wait! He did get a HUGE raise in pay and benefits. They made him an offer he could not refuse. Does anyone really think that scientists working for say the FDA are paid more than their counterparts in the pharmaceutical industry? Wall street regulators are paid more than employees in the Wall Street outfits they regulate? Public Health Service physicians and nurses are paid more than their private counter parts? Hell you mean the President's Secretary is paid more than Warren Buffet's? In less than a decade most individuals who attend the military academies get out to take a pay cut? So the well known brain drain is fed workers leaving for the private sector to take lower paying jobs?

When you use data intended for one purpose for another don't be surprised if the end product is garbage. Even more what is this atmosphere of hate about? For those who are not Fed employees if the wages and benefits are so great why are you working somewhere else? No one stopped anyone from working for the feds. Apparently, if you accept these studies, you chose to work for less. So what's your complaint?

I don't understand this need to hate everyone who thinks, acts, looks, and who is in a different situation than the speaker. Maybe the answer is in that famous line that misery loves company, but not just any ole company, misery loves miserable company.

I hope you all have a wonderful Memorial Day Weekend, and while we all enjoy a little respite before the start of summer, please take the time to honor and respect the real significance of Memorial day, which likely has personally touched your family, loved ones, and friends. For all our political differences Memorial Day is one of those holidays where we stand united.

Gat6

zephyp wrote:@Kreutz - FYI, I've been serving my country now since March 1977. I spent 6 years on active duty and most of the rest as a Federal civilian. I've sacrificed MUCH through the years a sucked up alot of BS merely because I WANTED TO SERVE MY COUNTRY...unlike many twits who bash our country and those who CHOOSE TO SERVE....I'm not in it for the money or the benefits or the job security...if you have any inkling what my current and other assignments have been like you would know that it is a sacrifice....

Bottom line is this (and I dont give a rats crap WHO pays for it)...I've given up alot and chosen this route to serve...why should I be compared to twits who chose the "easy" way and to stay in private industry because they didnt want to be married to the government and told when to stand up, sit down, shut up, or take a crap....

And the notion that private industry gets a lot less dont cut it with me because I know BECAUSE I'VE WORKED FOR PRIVATE INDUSTRY....

where in my profession THE PAY AND BENEFITS FAR OUTSTRIP MINE TODAY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

So, my socialist colleague, please kindly find a corner, sit down, and color....

********************************************************************************
Finally Mr. Z I knew this day would come, you are so RIGHT! And I thank you and others like you who made that choice. Thank you for your service. Have a satisfying, and gratifying Memorial Day Weekend
Gat6

@gat6

Please provide a credible source which shows that unions did anything useful. I can provide scholarly economic references which point out that the wage increases of workers is not at all correlated with union activity. It is however correlated with one thing very tightly, worker output (aka efficiency). See the rise in wages started decades before the unions really got started. During the periods of time in which they were very active wages often remained flat. Etc.

It's not until the last couple of decades where government pressure has made many corporations cave and provide the union workers with larger increases in wages than their efficiency that the unsustainable situation has settled in.

I'm not against the civil servants working for the Federal Government. I'm against the over sized government and would like to decommission about half of the various agencies, it total. Rent the buildings out as apartments or some other useful purpose.
It could be accomplished over a five year period. allowing the workers to find other jobs.
While doing this I'd like to see the legislative branch limited to 60 and 90 day sessions, like Virginia, limiting the amount of mischief they can get into.

Jim

gunderwood wrote:@gat6

Please provide a credible source which shows that unions did anything useful. I can provide scholarly economic references which point out that the wage increases of workers is not at all correlated with union activity. It is however correlated with one thing very tightly, worker output (aka efficiency). See the rise in wages started decades before the unions really got started. During the periods of time in which they were very active wages often remained flat. Etc.

It's not until the last couple of decades where government pressure has made many corporations cave and provide the union workers with larger increases in wages than their efficiency that the unsustainable situation has settled in.

Eh, this is true, all of my contracts come from hospitals with unionized staff that do absolutely nothing and have to pay my company to do it in the first place or fix it when theirs mess up. So they pay their peoples not to do the work, and me alot more to do the work, so they pay twice.

Unions breed laziness and incompetence....thank God.

gatlingun6 wrote:

zephyp wrote:@Kreutz - FYI, I've been serving my country now since March 1977. I spent 6 years on active duty and most of the rest as a Federal civilian. I've sacrificed MUCH through the years a sucked up alot of BS merely because I WANTED TO SERVE MY COUNTRY...unlike many twits who bash our country and those who CHOOSE TO SERVE....I'm not in it for the money or the benefits or the job security...if you have any inkling what my current and other assignments have been like you would know that it is a sacrifice....

Bottom line is this (and I dont give a rats crap WHO pays for it)...I've given up alot and chosen this route to serve...why should I be compared to twits who chose the "easy" way and to stay in private industry because they didnt want to be married to the government and told when to stand up, sit down, shut up, or take a crap....

And the notion that private industry gets a lot less dont cut it with me because I know BECAUSE I'VE WORKED FOR PRIVATE INDUSTRY....

where in my profession THE PAY AND BENEFITS FAR OUTSTRIP MINE TODAY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

So, my socialist colleague, please kindly find a corner, sit down, and color....

********************************************************************************
Finally Mr. Z I knew this day would come, you are so RIGHT! And I thank you and others like you who made that choice. Thank you for your service. Have a satisfying, and gratifying Memorial Day Weekend
Gat6

Well, if I were an android I would now be skittering around the room spewing white gunk from all orifices while mumbling does not compute over and over...

And, by the same token I agreed with most of what you said too...

There is indeed a brain drain with our government...young folks getting some outstanding training, credentials, and experience....then quicker than the road runner they are off to a lucrative job in the private sector....and those young smart contractors cant be enticed into a federal job...

I have a 27 yo smart, sharp contractor who works for me...I offered to convert his position to a GS-14...he thought about and turned me down the next day...smart kid...btw, for those of you not in the know to secure a GS-14 slot at 27 is a rare event and unheard of....

@Gat6 - you please do the same...and btw, I know you serve in some capacity and I too thank you for your service..please stay safe in your travels...

Kreutz wrote:

zephyp wrote:That is inherently ridiculous. I have worked for the government for a long long time and know first hand that there is plenty of fat that can be cut.

Should start with government employees no? The FedGov is the largest employer in the nation. Produces nothing from what I hear on this site all the time, so why not downsize that to barebones levels?

I for one would love to see all federal government personnel (especially politicians) lose their taxpayer funded healthcare. Its downright socialist after all to have such a system in place.

***************************************************************************************
Don't you think it's rather odd that you're communicating on something developed by government while stating that government produces nothing? Or were you just being tongue in cheek? If so I apologize for jumping the gun

Gat6

Kreutz wrote:

gunderwood wrote:@gat6

Please provide a credible source which shows that unions did anything useful. I can provide scholarly economic references which point out that the wage increases of workers is not at all correlated with union activity. It is however correlated with one thing very tightly, worker output (aka efficiency). See the rise in wages started decades before the unions really got started. During the periods of time in which they were very active wages often remained flat. Etc.

It's not until the last couple of decades where government pressure has made many corporations cave and provide the union workers with larger increases in wages than their efficiency that the unsustainable situation has settled in.

Eh, this is true, all of my contracts come from hospitals with unionized staff that do absolutely nothing and have to pay my company to do it in the first place or fix it when theirs mess up. So they pay their peoples not to do the work, and me alot more to do the work, so they pay twice.

Unions breed laziness and incompetence....thank God.

*******************************************************************************
The problem with sweeping generalizations about the human condition is that they are automatically untrue. I have had relatives treated at hospitals in this area that had union nurses, union maintenance and union service workers. The care my relatives received was top notch, and the hospital was clean as can be. I'm positive that someone else probably have had the opposite result at hospitals with and without unions.

The pilot that landed the jet in the Hudson river belongs to a union. Yep he sure was a lazy good for nothing union dude. WALMART employees do not belong to unions, and oh yeah they are just the BEST workers around. Scheduled airlines operate thousands of flights a day at completion rates that hit almost 100% without incident, that requires union pilots, union flight attendants, union customer service reps, union mechanics, union baggage handlers, etc. all working together, and working hard to make that happen. South West Airlines has more union workers at every level than most other airlines, and I guess we know what a lousy airline they are, right?

I hope you are not trying to make the argument that none union workers are better than union workers, or generally work harder than union workers? Did you find such data at the BLS? I don't think so.

I have a friend who is a concrete worker. He went through an apprenticeship first and yes he is a member of a union. He laughs when people try to run that game on him. He says that none union guys often do such shoddy concrete work until his firm makes a ton of money fixing the bad workmanship done by those less qualified dudes.

Last year we saw the difference in safety, accident rates, and violations at the Massey mines versus unionized mines. So you would rather work at a none union mine where wages are lower, safety is compromised and if you speak up you are summarily fired, rather than any union mine?

No wonder corporations run roughshod over employees because all too many are naive enough to think hey I can fend for myself... Yep sure you can.

There is a helluva lot more that goes into what makes a great company with great employees than are they unionized or not. Neither status is a guarantee of excellence or mediocrity as you would have us believe.

Gat6

Okay, jumping in late again, I'm posting after reading only a few replies so if any points are already covered, consider this an endorsement of sorts.

First, I notice that at least one member here has stated my own standard line already: taxation is not the main problem. The problem is spending. Does that mean I like taxes? No way. I maintain we are already taxed far too much - and that includes the rich no matter how much or little they are taxed "historically speaking".

Most of you probably realize that it is the middle class that bears the financial brunt of the budget. What about the rich? What about them? Well, gee, let's see...

Let's say we all own a company that makes chairs. Some guys in the company are really good at making chairs so they build about twice as many as the rest. So what should we do? Should we let them go ahead and make chairs or should we cry "foul! That's not fair to the lesser chair makers" and take away the tools of our best chairmakers to slow them down. Maybe we should make them stop making chairs altogether.

Isn't this what we do when we tax the rich, the most demonstrably apt money handlers in the nation? The more we tax them the less material they have to work with. Is this wise? I don't think so. So what am I proposing?

Not taxing the rich at all? No. Not at all. They should pay as much, percentage-wise as the middle class - where the "progressive" rate should end. A flat tax would be even better. Put the IRS out of business, let them go find real jobs right behind the tax accountants and tax lawyers. If we must tax income then why shouldn't everybody pay x% of total income? Do you still want to exempt the poorest of the poor? I think it's a mistake, but okay. Let's make it fair for everyone and exempt the first $20,000 for all.

Still, the bottom line is NOT how to squeeze out more taxes out of anyone - the bottom line is we spend too much. I'm NOT talking about Democrats vs Republicans. I'm talking about POLITICIANS. They all spend too much. Every single one from the town fathers to the US Congress has to deal with spending money... OUR money. Let us first insist they account for what has already been spent and what they plan to spend before they take another dime.

Andy

@Andy - did you know that the top 1% income bracket pays ~46% of all federal income tax? Did you know that the bottom 40% pay 0...yes zero and that group as a whole actually nets a profit in refunds over and above what they pay...these stats arent from some right wing talking points site either...based on my research of 2008 data posted by the IRS...irrefutable facts...

zephyp wrote:@Andy - did you know that the top 1% income bracket pays ~46% of all federal income tax? Did you know that the bottom 40% pay 0...yes zero and that group as a whole actually nets a profit in refunds over and above what they pay...these stats arent from some right wing talking points site either...based on my research of 2008 data posted by the IRS...irrefutable facts...

zephyp,

Nope, didn't know that. I'd like to see the numbers you came up with. Not with the intent to dispute you, but just to learn more. If your figures are correct (and I tend to believe the old saying, there are 3 types of lies, white lies, damn lies and statistics) then the tax situation REALLY needs some adjustment.

I just found a graph comparing revenues with spending. How accurate is this? I don't know. (again, 3 kinds of lies) http://visualbaseline.com/2011/04/histo ... nue-chart/ but it seems to shore up my contention that over the past several decades, spending has outpaced revenues. I keep wondering what the heck would happen if we just put the skids on spending for ONE year? (I mean NOT increasing spending, not introducing any new programs and not filling most federal vacancies) I don't know, I'm just suggesting here.

By the way, I just caught up with the thread. I'm amazed at the number people here who see the spending problem. Maybe it's always been so, but I've been screaming about this for 30 years and my voice was getting raw.

An example on the spending thing. As we are moving to a rural area with little broadband access, I decided to start a broadband company. My research indicates the feds decided to fund a "competitor" to the tune of $18 Million. The competitor added $4 Mill of "their own" money. Last time I looked, they spent $9 Mill without adding a single subscriber. What have they been doing? Environmental impact studies from what I gather.

Don't know exactly what their plan is but what I'm going to do is place my equipment on an existing tower that will send a signal over an area. I will then offer broadband to potential subscribers in said area. If someone expresses an interest I will see of the signal is strong enough to provide service. If it is and they want it, then I'll sign them up and put up a modest antenna.

Granted, they plan to offer service to over 100,000 potential subscribers while I'll be ecstatic if I end up with 500 out of maybe 11,000 but it won't cost me $1.8 Million to offer service to them either. As a matter of fact, IF I can get any financing at all, I'd be satisfied with $50K.

Concerning stripping all the benefits from Federal employees, I find that idea ludicrous. While at times, I've envied the pay and benefits enjoyed by government employees at various levels, I never compared the same positions to their private counterparts so I am not in a position to comment on this. However, I have no problem with paying government employees a comparable wage. My objection has always been the sheer number of government workers we employ.

In any case, stripping benefits rather suggests to me that federal employees should be considered less than human. One can point to any number of vital functions performed by the federal government. I, for one, wouldn't want to discard a valuable employee because a number of us suddenly came to the conclusion he was overpaid somehow. It's just cold, even for a miserable old conservative like me.

Corporations? They shouldn't be taxed.

Wall street? You're kidding, right? What the heck is Wall Street? We use this euphemism all the time but has anyone ever defined it? Are you referring to Investment Bankers? Stockbrokers? Merger and Acquisition "Specialists? What? Or are you referring to the Chase banks of the world? Maybe you mean the 100 Corporations on the DJIA?

I just don't know exactly what the term "Wall Street" is supposed to refer to though it always seems to mean either something admirable or inherently evil.

If "Wall Street" is meant to mean Corporate America, well then, your talking about a whole 'nuther thing here. It's like saying "Overpaid Entertainers", pointing the the Oprahs and Charlie Sheens of the industry, while ignoring the fact that you've couldn't name most of other 98% who scramble to pay the rent every month.

Just like most of America is middle America, most of Corporate America is small business... not General Motors.

And not a single one pays a single nickel of tax... ever. WAIT! You say. Of course they pay taxes. Or do they? Where do you think they get the dollars they send to the state and federal treasuries? Maybe it grows on trees? No. That money comes from their customers. BUSINESS DO NOT PAY TAXES - THEIR CUSTOMERS PAY TAXES.

Like so many have said, spending needs to be addressed before taxation. And once we collectively decide to tighten our belts, we would be well served to take a hard look at the taxation side of things. The way we are going is nuts.

Andy

Total income tax shares:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html#table6

In 2008 (the last year data was compiled and available at the time of the above report) the top 5% of earners paid 58.7% of the income taxes...

Preaching that "Tax the rich more" Is just bullshit politics and the unknowing or easily led will actually believe it. Much like the dumbasses that elected Obama and crew....In their little minds rich folks got it all and they've been screwed so the rich should pay more to support their lazy ass.I doubt most have ever looked at the income tax scheule to see just how much more you do have to pay as you become more affluent...

zephyp wrote:

VBshooter wrote:IMHO the "soak the rich" gambit is just a ruse to get the non producers excited to go out and vote for whatever $hithead is advicating it at the time.Flat tax for all including the non producers would even it all out

Consumption tax and do away with the IRS and the stinking tax code...

Just think of the money that would save the country! Getting rid of the IRS and the tax code is a good Idea...