Why Are Obama’s Supporters So Dumb?
On Hannity last week, the king of vulgarity, Jerry Springer, kept hammering home a puzzling point — that Barack Obama needs additional stimulus money so the government can hire more people. After all, he said, “the private sector can’t employ everyone.”
Now that’s one I’ve never heard before. The private sector can’t employ everyone, therefore the government needs to take more money from working people and “create” jobs for people who aren’t working? Springer’s comment was, of course, code for more redistribution of wealth.
The truth is that 100 percent employment is possible only in a police state like the Soviet Union of the twentieth century, where everyone was forced to work — at a job, and at a wage, that the state mandated. And we all know how well that system worked out for the masses.
By contrast, if there were such a thing as a true laissez-faire economy, everyone who genuinely wanted to work would be employed. The problem in today’s socialist America is that people do not have to work if they don’t want to. Millions of perfectly capable individuals have the option of remaining unemployed because of “jobless benefits,” minimum-wage laws, food stamps, and other forms of welfare.
Remove all of the above, and the employment rate would, indeed, approach 100 percent. Today, however, people have the luxury of taking their time finding a job that they believe to be worthy of their education, experience, and talents. And the result is that many people choose to be unemployed rather than “underemployed.”
The term underemployed makes me bristle because it implies that a person has a right to a job and a salary that he deems to be worthy of his efforts. Yet, no matter how hard I search, I cannot find any such right in the Constitution. Come to think of it, I can’t find any rights in the Constitution that the government has the authority to grant.
The fact is that the government has no right to take your money and use it to create a make-work job for someone else. Whether the private sector can or cannot employ everyone is another one of those false premises that the left uses to divert attention from the real issue — in this case, the issue of freedom.
Unfortunately, as crazy as Jerry Springer’s statement was, both Democratic and Republican statists continually show, through their actions, that they agree with him. Which is to say that they don’t believe in capitalism. What they do believe in is state capitalism — or, more appropriately, state-controlled capitalism, much like in China. Statist politicians clearly understand that continually increasing welfare benefits is the surest way to stay in office.
We’ve come a long way since Calvin Coolidge famously said, “The business of America is business.” Sadly, today redistribution of wealth is America’s number-one business, which is why free-market constitutionalists are finding it increasingly difficult to push through any cuts in public-assistance programs.
Isn’t it interesting that Ronald Regan, a Republican, and Bill Clinton, a one-time spread-the-wealth Democrat, both cut the number of people on food stamps and presided over the two most robust economies of the past half century? No doubt it was just an inconvenient truth.
But a little truth has never deterred Barack Obama from relentlessly striving to achieve his goals. That’s why one of Obama’s greatest triumphs in his quest to cleanse the United States of its evil capitalist system has been to increase the number of food-stamp recipients from 32 million to 46 million in just three years.
Not surprisingly, at the recent Fox News Republican debate, Juan Williams, a hapless media soul lost between two worlds, claimed that Newt Gingrich’s reference to Barack Obama as “the food-stamp president” had “racial overtones” — even though half of the people receiving food stamps are white! Nice diversion, to be sure.
The fact is that when Jerry Springer says that “the private sector can’t employ everyone,” he ignores the reality that, from California to Spain … from Wisconsin to Greece, the mantra of the pampered parasitic class is, “We don’t give a damn about the economy, the debt, or the government’s lack of cash. We want our benefits anyway!” Not jobs, mind you. Benefits.
Giving its crack editorial staff due credit, I believe Newsweek almost had it right in it’s cover-story headline, which read: Why are Obama’s critics so dumb?
In fact, with just a bit of editing, I was able to straighten out the wording for them: Why are Obama’s supporters so dumb? Why do they not see that by continuing to demand that the welfare state expand, their children and grandchildren are destined to live under tyranny?
As Thomas Sowell said in his article “An Ignored ‘Disparity’”, “Whole totalitarian governments have risen to dictatorial power on the wings of envy and resentment ideologies.”
Sorry, Jerry, but the problem is not the private sector’s inability to “employ everyone.” The problem is envy and resentment, the dark forces that blind welfare recipients from the certain consequences of their actions.
Which is why you can count on class warfare, like never before in our history, being the overriding theme of this year’s elections. It will be ugly.
You have permission to reprint this article so long as you place the following wording at the end of the article:
Copyright © 2012 Robert Ringer
ROBERT RINGER is a New York Times #1 bestselling author and host of the highly acclaimed Liberty Education Interview Series, which features interviews with top political, economic, and social leaders. He has appeared on Fox News, Fox Business, The Tonight Show, Today, The Dennis Miller Show, Good Morning America, The Lars Larson Show, ABC Nightline, and The Charlie Rose Show, and has been the subject of feature articles in such major publications as Time, People, The Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Barron's, and The New York Times.
To sign up for his one-of-a-kind, pro-liberty e-letter, A Voice of Sanity, Click Here.
“he said, ‘the private sector can’t employ everyone.’”
It all started with John Maynard Keynes believe that during downturns in the economy that the private sector would need temporary help form the government, i.e. more government spending. His view was adopted by FDR, and it finally evolved into the Great Society wherein individuals believed that government spending is a necessary part of the economy all the time and especially so during economic downturns.
“The term underemployed always makes me bristle because it implies that a person has a right to a job and a salary that he deems to be worthy of his efforts.”
Yes, it can imply that; However, it can also simply mean that an individual is highly educated and trained to be a doctor, engineer, teacher or a rocket scientist and because of a poor economy said highly skilled worker cannot find a job and/or his profession is currently not netting enough pay. For example, just before the total economic collapse of the USSR, doctors were forced into quitting their jobs because the state imposed wage controls which were insufficient for doctors to make a living; therefore, they had to drive cabs, open a business in the black market or find some other way to survive; They were, ironically, underemployed because of state interventionism.
Currently, many workers claim thay can only find part-time jobs when they want/need full time work in order to survive. Economists label such workers as underemployed, i.e. under-utilization.
Correction: It all started with John Maynard Keynes’ believe…
*belief*
Good comments R.S. Please allow me to paraphrase if I may: “Keynes believed the private sector occasionally needed help from the public sector during economic downturns, and this idea was adopted by FDR & the Great Society pushers who also believed that government spending is necessary all the time, and especially during economic downturns.”
Let’s add one more piece to this puzzle to get things straight and maybe help explain how we fell into this political hellhole of statism & economic stagnation.
This (false) belief that government can help the economy by spending tax dollars is advocated by those intellectual rats in government & their supporters to divert attention away from reality, and is pure propaganda. They know this belief is phony, but it is their “purported” reason why they insist that government must intervene in the economy. It is only an excuse for their seeming legitimacy to be able to impose their will (and misdeeds) on society. The real reasons for their intervention are, (1) for those in power to buy votes and (2) being a recipient of the payoffs & special privileges. Spending other people’s money in exchange for votes from your favored groups of supporters and the politically connected is where the real fun begins for these racketeers. And naturally, it’s even more gratifying being on the receiving end of government largess.
So, once again, it simply boils down to recognizing one of the banes of mankind — the quid-quo-pro relationship that inevitably occurs in a democracy between those scoundrels infected with a something for nothing mentality.
< how we fell
some pushing, herding, droving…that over time fell(t) like home, and became the domesticates dance.
it's more partnership, than imposition, now.
Oopps, there goes that dyslexia thing again — “quid pro quo”
Reply to Stephan & reunion:
“Would we be having this conversation if Keynes had lived long enough to recant his non-sensible economic philosophy? Answer: almost certainly.”
Yes, we or somebody like us would be holding a conversation, but not about Keynes unless we used his memory in support of our own lessons about Austrian economics. Like reunion said, “keynes, or whoever, had it not been him, served his purpose.”
Nevertheless, history would likely have been altered for the better if Keynes openly “recanted.” So, would that then have ended the fight? No. Would the collectivists have found a replacement? Yes. It’s irrational to think otherwise.
This is the way I look at it: People like us pay an ignorance premium throughout our entire lives, and the more ignorant the masses are the more we pay. This ignorance premium is greatly increased by people like Keynes when they are used by the collectivist as intellectual cover. On the other hand, individuals like Ron Paul help educate the masses and lessen the ignorance premium.
Finally, it must be noted that, yes, the collectivist’s end game includes “good old brute force…and those clouds are gathering.”
I never figured it any other way; in fact, as each year passes it only brings all of us closer to the day of reckoning when a balloon payment on the ignorance premium will come due.
Reply to Stephan:
Thanks for paraphrasing (rewriting) my scribble into more coherent thought.
I recall F.A. Hayek being interviewed regarding his collegial relationship with J.M. Keynes; Interestingly enough, Hayek mentioned in the interview that six weeks prior to Keynes’ death the two held a conversation wherein Keynes indicated his disappointment with the interpretation and implementation of his “General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money.” Apparently, Keynes was having second thoughts about the veracity of his “General Theory,” and, at the time, Hayek felt that his colleague would modify or even retract key precepts and assumptions posited therein.
F.A. Hayek lamented that, “in retrospect,” he should have mounted a challenge and rebutted Keynes on the spot, but he was sure that Keynes would refute himself if tactfully given adequate time to do so. Sadly, Keynes died shortly thereafter.
My belief is that Keynes’ untimely death was an historic tragedy that changed the course of history. I wish Keynes had had time to renounce his beliefs before he died in the same corresponding manner that Milton Friedman had the time to renounced his belief in the Federal Reserve before his passing.
keynes was an apologist, a court authority with a whitewash brush. even if he had retracted, recanted, apologized & mea culpa’d, the train had already left the station (his name was added later).
after all, smarter, and more honorable men were around at the time. and before. they were roundly ignored. or worse.
keynes was historical postage; if not him, another would have filled the apology slot. and the mail would have gone thru, just the same.
Reply to reunion:
“if not him, another would have filled the apology slot.”
Yes, my friend: On this we totally agree, but here’s the rub: If after having filled the slot, Keynes had renounced The General Theory, then the moral and intellectual authority that the state assigned and continues to draw from him would be nonexistent. Just as nonexistent as Milton Friedman’s initial support of the Federal Reserve Bank which currently cannot survive by resting on his memory.
For example, in the future, neither Romney nor Newt will be able to quote Milton Friedman in their effort to provide intellectual cover for the Fed, aka public enemy # 1.
Conclusion: There is no doubt in my mind that a renunciation of Keynesianism by its founder would have affected history.
wouldn’t your thesis require a finite number of apology slots, tho? do you think those slots are finite? tracing back from keynes to fed reserve act to the other central bank fits & starts to hamilton’s wet dream, in the very beginning, to bank of england, to, to, to…the market for apologies seems pretty boundless.
the noticeable thing about these apologies is that, once off the ground (like any gov agency or bureaucracy), the initial rationale becomes superfluous: frankenstein’s monster has been animated, & will not die peacefully (or commit suicide).
keynes, or whoever, had it not been him, served his purpose. friedman, partially retracted, but is still the chicago school name, a monetarist, still the guy who came up with the idea of withholding income taxes from paychecks, also served purpose.
these guys are fronts. history veneers. and replaceable. keynsianism, friedmanism, lafferism, or alias smith & jonesianism…does it matter what the name on the wrapper is? those are provided to the prospects after the emotional hooks have been set, so that they have “intellectual” things to say about their purchase. that’s all it is. and if that stops working, well then there is always good old brute force…and those clouds are gathering.
R.S.
Would we be having this conversation if Keynes had lived long enough to recant his non-sensible economic philosophy? Answer: almost certainly.
The most shocking thing about the Newsweek cover-story headline: “Why are Obama’s critics so dumb?” is that anyone still reads Newsweek. Maybe the headline should have been “Why are Newsweek’s readers so dumb?”
Gill
Right on!!! One of the most serious problems we have in this country is the horrible education that just keeps on getting worse. For example, in Newark, NJ, only 23% of high school students graduate, BUT the teachers keep their unions and their high salaries and free benefits – no consequences for them and apparently no interest in educating their students either.
cartels…thank the state……which thanks the i-am-nots (voters)….
My husband spent a year “underemployed” in 2009 when he lost his high-paying job as an aircraft dispatcher. He worked at Target unloading trucks in the early morning, part-time for minimum wage. It was the only job he could find at the time. Had it not been for his Air Force pension, we would have gone under completely. I spent a year trying to find a job, but with so many out of work who were better-qualified (I have an associate’s degree), I couldn’t find anything. Due to MS I am no longer able to work at McDonald’s or Burger King, or I would have gone there. I applied for a job as a church secretary, but there were over 500 applicants for that *one* job.
If the government would get out of the way of business, the jobs would be there. Yes, there will be downturns, but is that any worse than our current situation?
You are so correct. Let industry hire! So sick of the whiners. I am trying to learn a new trade in another country which I believe may provide me better opportunities if we ever go back to the states. You do what you have to do and trust in God or self or whatever gets you through to help make it through the day, week, and year. Best of luck to you, it is so frustrating see what is happening back home in the U.S.
We already know what to expect from Obama, and from Obama supporters. Leftist ideology simply exists.
Of much greater concern is the question: Why are GOP, alleged conservative voters, so dumb?
Santorum is on video and audio record stating in no uncertain terms his hatred of individual liberty (if you want the transcript, I’ll post it); Romney’s track record reveals a core of collectivist’s belief in big government; and Gingrich clearly is fluid in his statements of core beliefs, none of which ever match up to his actions.
The great mystery is the stupidity of conservatives who believe the narrative of the mainstream media as they marginalize Ron Paul as a kook, crazy, dangerous, or just plain unelectable.
Is spiritual justice playing out before our eyes? If we are given the chance to elect an honest man, but reject him instead; can we then be held justly accountable for our demise?
Yes, I would like to see that transcript. Please do post it.
As to Ron Paul….MOST of what the man says makes perfect sense. The problem is inherent with taking libertarinism to it’s fullest degree. It works just fine until you factor in a wingnut like Amadingadong from Iran, or others that don’t adhere to the same concept.
figure out principles (laws of nature, not personal preferences, not what is personally less scary, not the lesser of two evils), and then proceed. to the “fullest degree”.
a mixed, or partial principle, is a contradiction. contradictions do not stand. mixed economies, middle ways, etc.
Thought about it more and decided I don’t know enough about the law to post the actual quote. Surely there’s no problem posting the link to the video from “Freedom Watch” where Santorum clearly declares where he stands on our precious liberty. Enjoy, and spread the word about this guy. My guess is he is parroting the core belief of all neo-con Republicans.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTDAu6ENPVE
?”. . . be held justly accountable for our demise.?” Isn’t that like asking if we should be held accountable for jumping off a tall building thinking we can fly? Reality will in the end hold us all responsible.
it’s not the flying swarms that’s a problem. it’s the landing, because it’s invariably atop conscientious objectors.
Here is the reply Jerry Springer should have been given. ” Private enterprise does provide all of the jobs currently available”. City jobs, county jobs, state jobs and, yes, federal jobs, as it is private enterprise that is responsible for the GDP from which government extracts the funds to employ people. The fact that they borrow billions to cover these ‘ costs ‘ only means that they will have to extract more in the future. Jerry Springer should be forced to read Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman before showing up to spew such nonsense.
better yet, his hosts should read. and it should be mises, and the boys, not the middlers, like sowell & friedman.
More frogs in the boiling water!
It’s very sad. When people (welfare recipients) are benefitting, it’s most difficult (if not impossible) for them to see the far-reaching ramifications of all this “Big Brother Love.”
The water’s so warm now. It’ll come to a boiling point, too late to jump out, before it’s over.
Lacking any trust whatsoever in the whole corrupt system, what Congress person/s will actually TRY to make a difference? None is my answer.
So, what will happen? The entire financial and political system will have to fall, I fear.
IF we really (we, the masses) don’t have the ability to avert the fall, then what should we do to prepare to withstand it — for those of us who can’t get outta Dodge, that is?
It’s like the ‘Holocaust Syndrome’ to me. Even while we SEE all the madness going on, which is precisely what’s happened before throughout history — we still try to believe it can’t happen here.
tho technically “it” can refer to persons, it also refers to objects, things, and so is a better choice than “we” when referring to the masses. masses, mobs are dehumanized, and dehumanizing, things. it can’t, won’t, do anything to avert; it’s purpose is to be diverted.
step away.
Please don’t criticize another’s use of words if you can’t even find the “caps” button on your keyboard. Also, “it’s purpose . . .” is incorrect – you should use “its purpose” – no apostrophe.
your elevation of parliamentary caps & apostrophes is minutia. a change of subject – away from content.
Hitler spewed the same mantra as Obama et al and some foolish others are preaching today. In the 1930′s Hitler promised full employment and empire and racial and class purity to the German people if only they would believe in him and his superior policies and follow him to Hell, no questions asked.
that damocles sword variation. then…
Yes, the coming election will be ugly, but let the truth come out and let the loud debate begin. Americans need to know what is going on and need to be told the truth about it.
…and now. keep tugging. the horse hair will give, and the blade will come down.
Resolute Voice: Unless the GOP nominee is Ron Paul, how will the truth come out?
Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, and Obama, all hold the same views that America must police the world, that a privately owned central bank should run our economy, that the government can continue to spend money endlessly, and that our lives should be regulated by powerful government bureaus. So what debate will we have?
Dr. Paul will use our military budget to protect America at home, will immediately eliminate five large Federal Government Departments including the useless Dept. of Education, will first audit then end the Federal Reserve Bank, and will restore all of our Rights granted under our Constitution and stolen by Bush and Obama. Yes, if he is the nominee; we will have one beautiful debate.
Rob, you’ve just penned one of the finest attention-grabbing headlines I’ve ever read.
But maybe the better question is, “Why Are Obama Supporters So Immoral?”
And immoral they most certainly are.
Socialism is legalized theft — a violation of God’s Eighth and Tenth Commandment. (Thou shalt not steal… and… Thou shalt not covet … ANYTHING that is thy neighbors.)
Which is why communism has never worked, never will work, and why its advocates were some of the most depraved people in the history of our fallen human, sin-cursed race.
And never forget: socialists are the kissing cousins of both communists and totalitarians.
And yes, you hit the nail on the head about what you call the “pampered parasitic class.”
These kind of people have a poor work ethic, have swallowed the soul-destroying liberal bait hook, line and sinker, and couldn’t care less about anyone but themselves – even if their behavior, multiplied MILLIONS of times over, bankrupts the country.
The once hardy American capitalist golden goose is slowly being choked to death by the socialists in both parties… on both the federal AND state level.
Meanwhile a HUGE debt tsunami, the lethal harvest of – what else? – socialism – is slowly headed our way.
Our foreign enemies are gleefully waiting to cue up this tune: “By By Miss American Pie, drove my Chevy to the levy but the levy was dry.”
Rob, as always, thank you for standing up for Freedom and Individual Responsibility.
Nice comment in re “parasitic”. From my point of view, communism/socialism are both parasitic, while capitalism is symbiotic. Capitalism takes FROM the consumer, but the consumer benefits by what it takes in reurn FROM capitalism! (and yes, sometimes the balance gets out of whack)
The title should be Why are OBUMMER’S Supporters So Dumb?
Chris,
And your reply is equally insightful. It’s just so frustrating that such a high percentage of the populace choose to ignore the facts. I fear for this great nation that we so love.
the apt analogy to stimulus money is stimulant drugs. the first time, the first few times, oh what a rush. but then, homeostasis. tolerance levels caboose along with the stimulant. more and more is needed, and the marginal “rush” is less and less. at some point, “more” does not stimulate at all – it kills.
< the problem in today’s socialist America
“socialist” is just the serape. the bones underneath are authoritarian. the bones drape themselves as a cost of doing “business”: baksheesh, payoffs, bread/circuses, distractions. the locals continue to sell manhattan island for $24 worth of cloth & beads. and the psychological/emotional degradation continues to ratchet.
there is no such thing as “state capitalism”. when you see this conjunction, think “slavery liberty”, and perspective will remain clear. orwellian “dysjunctions” are chant, mantra..that work into individual consciousness, to turn it out, to collective unconsciousness.
“belief” is also a red herring. power mongers don’t “believe” in power; they just want it. it’s their stimulant of choice. i-am-nots provide it.
the con-stitution subverts free markets, as was always intended. dilorenzo’s book on hamilton is an easy read that would clarify this, for anyone interested in the truth. so “free market constitution” is another dysjunction; think “liberty slavery”.
it is also an inconvenient truth that the reagan/clinton food stamp cuts and “robust economies” is a spurious correlation. other welfare recipients saw their spoils increase dramatically under those two goons.
resentment, envy, are human condition; ideologies, via mechanisms called states, govs, capitalize. ideology is cart, not horse.
i watched “atlas shrugged” on dvd last night. part one. pretty good. and an overview for the non-readers.
I certainly agree with “reunion”, but NO government is free of the resentment, envy, etc. At some point, we must all decide which form of government leaves us as free as possible, and yet protects those freedoms from being usurped by unscrupulous villians, be they private or public. A system of checks and balances works best, until a cabal finds a way to control ALL of the checks and balances. Beware those who preach LIBERTY, and practice CONTROL (by government) ? a la Obama?
“checks & balances” was part of the pitch. it never worked. the end runs began immediately.
you may have missed my point: states & govs are the transmission mechs for those character flaws. not much can be done, probably, about the character flaws, but better to let them walk, than ride the “public transportation”……
The logic of Ayn Rand is hard to beat. Yes, she is an atheist, and I’m an EXTREMELY died-in-the-wool evangelical Christian, but she did understand the evils of socialism/communism, or shades thereof. I believe her character, John Galt, said it best when asked what the government should do to recover from its coming demise, (because of failed policies, nonsensical rules and regulations, etc.) His statement was, “Get the hell out of my way!” In other words, get the government out of free enterprise, and let the market forces take over. If “the poor” would take the time to consider, they’d realize that even though they have little to show for the welfare programs, the liberals who lead the clamor for MORE subsidies have certainly made THEMSELVES rich! (Oh, the incongruity of it all!!) The greed and corruption within the private sector cannot come close to that in politics. When Milton Freidman was asked by Phil Donahue why the government programs were not best, he replied, “because I don’t even trust YOU, let alone the government!” (not an exact quote, but close) –’nuff said
* Dustan: >>> “If “the poor” would take the time to consider, they’d realize that even though they have little to show for the welfare programs, the liberals who lead the clamor for MORE subsidies have certainly made THEMSELVES rich!”
Try this on, “For Size” (GIVEN the URL gets printed here!?!)
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/cftoto/2012/01/25/bh-interview-runaway-slaves-c-l-bryant-pulls-no-punches-decrying-modern-political-plantation/
Milton Fr i e dman – sorry, Milt
Have you ever gotten that nagging feeling like maybe, just maybe, you were on the wrong planet? I know I do.
heinlein’s “stranger in a strange land”……(get the full version; a lot was hacked/edited from the original).
I vote its also like a bad dream that happens when awake as well as being asleep.
What happened to the toons?
BigHO is winning. Black rev. Jesse Lee Peterson — the other Jesse — says, “Everywhere a black is in charge that area is turned into a ghetto. We now have a black president and he is turning all of America into a ghetto.” Question is: why isn’t BigHO impeached? Answer: no one has the guts.
Ringer for President!
all the presidents have been ringers….
What jobs are Senator Springer talking about? I have lost count of the number of times I called the government and it takes several hours and five different transfers just to get the right office.My other question is who ultimately foots the bill for the money to create new jobs? Correct. WE will.What will the new jobs be? Will it be these beauracratic jobs that equate to three people doing what can be achieved by one? Sorry,I see this gameplan as a direct mimmicking of how the Soviet Union went or how Cuba operated.
Yes, it will be ugly Robert. Because the media, academic, and intellectual elite has done such an effective job at tying together race and class in the public’s mind. Which will sadly lead to racial and class conflict on a level we cannot imagine. I don’t know how we avoid this to some extent, because in fact civil unrest will occur if the proper remedy is administered (cuts in govt. spending) before the collapse, or afterwards if we keep going as we are. We have relocated to Australia for a while and from afar the situation is much worse than I had perceived while there (and it is bad enough there). One of many nice things in Oz is the lack of racial insanity – the political correctness exists but is not nearly as insane. In the US, people are so afraid of offending folks of different races that they forget capitalism is not a “white person” thing and grovel when charged with racial insensitivity for advocating an “oppressive” system. Here, people just seem to live. (Note that Oz has its own problems – as noted in The Coming Collapse of Western Civ. – but one gets the sense that there is a future here. By contrast the U.S. seems like Gotham City.)
Cheers, thanks for everything!
By the way, you would be interested that the IRS now has a new requirement that overseas citizens must report every bank account which has had $10,000 or more. So that means more time out of the day to comply with that edict! Australia right now refuses to turn over private banking information, as I understand it, but we are still going to comply because who knows what goodies the U.S. has in store for us when we get back? The criminal penalties are steep for failing to obey our “rulers” on this, and note that many people are getting caught by surprise because they are not aware of the requirement. Face it folks – govt. is not your friend. And right now, the U.S. govt. is especially covetous. Prepare for what may well be coming, because it is not going to be pretty!
Jerry Springer, and the fact that he gets any ink at all, is proof positive that our once great culture is lost.
I dun’no, maybe flouride really did make us all idiots.
Pro-tax sorts insinuate that those wanting to keep what they earn rather than send it to the IRS are being greedy. Which is why the following line from the recent bestselling Steve Jobs biography by Walter Isaacson (p. 7) caught my attention. Steve Jobs: “My college fund came from my dad paying $50 for a Ford Falcon or some other beat-up car that didn’t run, working on it for weeks, and selling it for $250—and not telling the IRS.” I’d like to see someone argue that the government would have put that tax money to better use than Paul Jobs.
problem with this argument is that it is consequentialist – which sets you up for federal registers full of “loopholes”. what matters is that the $ earned belongs to the earner. period. what it is spent on, or not, is irrelevant.
Amen Reunion! Thanks for reminding us, once again, to not get sucked into the false agenda argument(s). One’s time, talent and treasure belongs to that individual, period.
Hmmmmm….