Posts Tagged ‘New York Times’

The New York Times  – Where Democracy Goes to Die

April 10, 2018

Orban – Champion of sane governance

The New York Times is now carrying a hit piece on the overwhelming winner of the most recent elections in Hungary.

Amazingly, their paragraph to describe thrice elected Orban, is not so far off, including its description of the dying West:

“As a young man, Orban fought against Bolshevism. Western liberal democracy was the Promised Land. Now it has morphed into the enemy. The West is the site of European cultural suicide, the place where family, church, nation and traditional notions of marriage and gender go to die. ”


But of course, the article lifts up the guy who finances socialism around the world, is the epitome of hedge fund financing, which “liberals” claim to hate, and finances havoc in many places. After he gave the keynote speech for a summit of heads of state from the Caribbean and Central American region, one of his audience tried to overthrow the Constitution in Honduras to try to set up another Chavista-type regime, which Honduras pushed back against.

So Three Cheers for Orban. Not a perfect libertarian I’m sure, and many “modern liberals” might hate his Christianity, but that’s life in the world leading up to the end times.


The World’s Fastest Failure – (Built to fail?)

November 3, 2013
Ludwig von Mises

Ludwig von Mises (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The World’s Fastest Failure – Liberty Crier:

by Jeffrey Tucker
Obamacare certainly has made history. It has set the record for the fastest-failing Big Government program in world history. This isn’t only about a website flop; it is about the failure of government to accomplish the aims of Obamacare in general, and in a way that has profoundly touched millions of individual lives.

“Train wreck” is a good term here. You know it is coming. You can see the maps. You can predict the timing and the damage. But there is still something stunning about seeing the spectacular explosion actually happen in real life. For students of shoddy government attempts to mimic the market, it’s been a beautiful confirmation of everything we know.

Back to the speed of the disaster. It took decades for Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and all the rest to enter into the unsustainable, unintended-consequences phase. It was a generation before the costs blew up and the service dwindled. Most welfare programs begin with at least the appearance of a net win.

Not this one. It took only a few days after Obamacare was released for it to enter the archetype phase into which all forms of compulsory government systems eventually collapse. Never have the rotten tomatoes flown so fast and so furiously.

The ridiculous cost overruns were, of course, there from the beginning. The website alone: $600 million. More striking has been the astonishing fact that that program designed to give more people access to health care has already resulted in the exact opposite. More people have been kicked out of their existing service than have successfully signed up for a new one. The intended beneficiaries — the uninsured — have little or no interest in it, while the already insured are more scared about the future than ever.

The American health care system has been a mess for a long time, but this much can be said about it: It has been somewhat stable. The costs have been high and rising, but not completely unaffordable. And because of the genuine market-based elements remaining in the existing system, American health care has at least been innovative with lifesaving technologies. Doctors got paid and medical services were profitable.

Suddenly, the future seems uncertain and even scary for nearly everyone. If one day you can get a letter from a provider that doubles premiums and makes them equal to the full wages of a salaried employee, there is a serious problem. Not even the worst predictions about Obamacare imagined such a thing.

All the more maddening has been the way the president himself seems hopelessly confused about the nature of the technological failure of the main delivery system. He seems to be living in the past, in which a website was nothing but a billboard or a static information provider.

That’s not the way websites are today. Websites are both portals to and extensions of the real world. They must mirror and even drive thinking and behavior of all users. And contrary to what people believe, they are not easy to build. A great website is every bit as complex as an elaborate good in the material world.

To build one requires a blithering array of decisions among trade-offs. Most people see only the user interface, but this is like paint on a car. The engine itself can be enormously complex and subject to infinite bugs. You can write code or go with existing structures. You can choose among thousands of possible languages and management systems or build your own. Database structures are a science unto themselves.

It is a challenge enough in the private sector. To build a website for something like The New York Times or Twitter is a monumental task that never ends. This is one reason that startups are better at building websites than large corporations. Large corporations have to cut through their own bureaucratic apparatus to get it done right, whereas startups are fortunate to have a clean slate from which to build code.

For government, it is far more difficult, if not impossible. Governments are not used to having customers in a traditional sense. They have consumers of their products, but their profitability does not fundamentally depend on them. The government way is to extract revenue by force and spend it according to political priorities. Profit and loss do not matter and, in fact, can’t even be calculated. That’s because government is not a wealth producer. It is a wealth consumer.

There is a reason that governments can’t build websites. A website is like the market itself. It is always in development. For a site to be useful, it must always be adapting to change. There is no final release that is also not a tombstone. Governments are horrible at this task. Governments want to freeze time and enforce compliance with the plan, users be damned. So the failure of is not an accident; it is a reflection of the failure of government itself to be a productive, efficient, and useful part of the social order.

This is why a website fix seem so untenable. Note from the congressional hearing that politicians doing the grilling do not understand the first thing about computer code. They can’t understand the language. They can’t understand the functionality. What’s more, it is not clear that Republicans have any real incentive to intervene in the meltdown. This is the first time in perhaps six years that the Republicans have a chance to ride high.

The prospect of how Obamacare can permanently wreck the legacy of this administration is tantalizing, indeed!

What lessons can we learn here? This is about the failure of one type of socialism, but it is a different type from nationalization. Obama and his friends never attempted to end the market. They attempted to set up a market that operates like a real one, but with politically expedient results. In other words, they are attempting to “play market” while subverting crucial market institutions like fees, private property, freedom of choice, authentic competition between providers, and experimental entrepreneurship.

The idea that government could “play market” was the fallback position of post-socialist planners of the 1940s and 1950s. Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises predicted that this would never work. You can assemble the world’s smartest people, give them maximum power, throw massive resources at the problem, and still end up with what Mises called “planned chaos.” That’s the best description of the health care world since Obamacare was unleashed on the world.

Some predictions for the future of Obamacare: It will not be repealed. It will be intolerably tightened. More physicians will leave the system. More of the uninsured will choose fines over premiums. The market will continue to provide ever more options outside the system. Leaving the country for surgery and other services will become more common. Buying prescriptions from emerging markets will become mainstream.

Through fits and starts — and with many victims along the way — a market for health care will emerge, but it will be outside the official channels. Eventually, Obamacare will collapse of its own weight.


Jeffrey Tucker

// <![CDATA[
function DOMContentLoaded(browserID, tabId, isTop, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) { object.DOMContentLoaded(browserID, tabId, isTop, url);} };
function Nav(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, isBool, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.Nav(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, isBool, url); };
function NavigateComplete(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.NavigateComplete(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, url); }
function Submit(browserID, tabID, target, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.Submit(browserID, tabID, target, url); };

// ]]>

Dark Reading punts at PRISM-Don’t know much about illegal hacking?

June 27, 2013

I just discovered this article at a “Dark Reading” web site. Funny how an author for a dark-side security information web site does not know much about the dark-side surveillance program the entire world just found out about, now weeks ago, even though there have been whistleblowers telling us about it many years ago now, including in a New York Times article in 2009.

But then again, maybe the title is just the author’s way of saying she wants to stay out of prison, and uses a rhyme to kind of get oblique about it. With what they probably know at Dark Reading, maybe they just want to keep their head attached to their bodies?

Getting Out Of PRISM :

…Multiply that by thousands of employees, and it’s pretty clear that nobody’s marching in perfect lockstep. (By the way, this is also why grand conspiracy theories are bunk: Nobody’s that good.)

So entities aren’t monolithic, and there is always something going on behind the scenes that you don’t know about — and that might change your opinion on what you do know. For anything that sounds wrong, there is generally a reason behind it that made good sense at the time. This is why I’m not going to opine about the topic of national surveillance: I don’t have enough background information (and I probably never will).

“Nobody’s that good”, they always say. If there was such a massive conspiracy, they couldn’t hide it.

And they roll right over the contradiction without thinking. Hey, guys! They DIDN’T hide it, because now we KNOW about it, and they’re EXPOSED. You think talking about tin-foil hats says anything about anything? You trust a stranger to follow your young girl’s whereabouts and teen parties?

It’s simple. Even for a geek. You’ve got “nothing to hide”, but do you open your bedroom curtains and put a web cam to broadcast your nightly dalliances? Why not? It’s all legal activity, isn’t it? Or is it? And how much of what you do every day is illegal? How do you know, there are 100s of 1000s of pages of laws in this here land now. How can you know you never do anything illegal?

That’s a copout, not that I blame you. I do my own cautionary behaviors. The title says “Getting out of PRISM”, a very clever title, because everybody wants to “get out of PRISM”. We all want a get-out-of-jail (prison) free card too. But pleading ignorance will not save us from guilt.

You don’t have to be an expert to know what is already publicly known.

#1. We know what PRISM is. You know what it is. Your write for a technical web site that purports to be a source for information on exactly this kind of security topic. Besides, by now maybe even your grandmother knows what it is.

[Insert note: With what I saw in a video clip of interviews with
college kids, maybe you don’t know]

You could at least say you’re against it. How hard is that? “I am against universal national surveillance”. See? Or do you know something we don’t? A national surveillance state easily becomes a national police state. This is not “rocket science”, and it’s not even technical. It’s easy.

You could even reference the Electronic Freedom Foundation. They do have plenty of experts that have plenty of background information about this program and its army of cousins, and maybe some that did not get the attention that Snowden did.

And keep in mind there were several whistle-blowers before this one. Back in the day, the Establishment Press could not contain itself enough in praising Elsberg for the Pentagon Papers. My, how things have changed. At this stage, we can tell who is “Establishment Media” by how much they support the official line of the government, or cover up its secrets, or spin an unfortunate spill of secrets. Yep, applies to this UBM web site too I guess.

But the future is not written in stone. There are reasons they did not want this publicized, and there are reasons they want to track each and every one of us. Note the questions the Intelligence Committee in the House did NOT ask the NSA guys in the hearing the other day.

Even the purported maverick Michelle Bachman showed her timidity in her questions and carefully avoiding the hard-hitting followups that should have been asked. Do you listen on calls, she asked. The answer was that they do not “routinely” blah blah. And as to listening in on phone calls, he said, they have to get court orders before they can use the content of phone calls or emails in the courts. Give it a name: The D.C. Two-Step. Dodge to the right, dodge to the left. Shimmy right, shimmy left. Enough to make you dizzy.

The Fourth.

Whistleblowers tell – Wiretapping one Watergate office, now wiretapping everybody!

June 13, 2013
NSA Spy Center

NSA Spy Center (Photo credit: JamesArtre)


What if the Republicans or Democrats had called for prosecution against Deep Throat? What if the CIA had brought charges? Nixon had an enemies’ list, what if that were a kill list?


What if he had wiretapped not only the Democrats but the Republicans too, and not only political operators but their families, their friends, their acquaintances, and spies, and criminals, and cops, and governors, and Supreme Court justices like Robert Brown, and not only all of those, but every single person living in the United States?


What if this had some connection to Justice Roberts’ sudden change of attitude on the Obamacare decision? Before you answer, remember, PRISM was still called a “conspiracy theory” just ten years ago, and even after the New York Times ran a short article on it.


EDITORIAL: The Whistleblower – Washington Times:


There are a couple of paragraphs that bring out clearly the difference between Watergate and the more recent revelations:


(A couple of editors’ notes -mine- are in [brackets])


The latest revelations will have no pernicious effect [ed: on
terrorists and enemies] because our enemies assume Uncle Sam has been listening. Al Qaeda operatives use codes, dead drops and encryption to carry out attacks, such as the Boston bombings, under the nose of the mass surveillance. That’s what spies and terrorists do.


[The official record of events is that it took ten years to get at
Osama bin Laden, because he did not communicate using the media that
PRISM grabs.]


Google, Facebook and the other companies play along, denying that the government is directly tapping into their servers. This is an empty assurance, considering that these companies could never legally admit to allowing a tap. The court order authorizing blanket interception of “all call-detail records” from Verizon instructs that “no person shall disclose to any other person that the FBI or NSA has sought or obtained tangible things under this order.”


The next paragraph is a point that has not yet been made:


Such extreme secrecy isn’t about making sure that China or the Taliban never learn about U.S. surveillance capabilities, but about keeping ordinary Americans in the dark about what’s going on. The Nixon administration was brought low by the bungled bugging of the Democratic National Committee headquarters 41 years ago. Now every telephone in the country is tapped. A lot of people are unhappy about it, and we can be sure that the unelected bureaucrats in charge of these powerful surveillance tools will say whatever it takes to keep them.

A few analysts operating in secret have access to every embarrassing photograph, incriminating text message and off-color remark ever made on a telephone or over the Internet. The lesson here, so far, is that if the government won’t tell the public what’s going on, someone will. It’s not the way to run a government, but this government brought it upon itself. The Founding Fathers would never have entrusted power over such information to a handful of men. Neither should we.

Read more:
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter


The cat is out of the bag, now we all know, the American government has now admitted it, the truth is on the loose and in the wild, wild, untamed wilderness of the Internet. No wonder the president doesn’t like the New Media, Bush didn’t either of course.




In 2012 Old Media was still denying what some of us were protesting against what we knew 20 years ago. As long ago as a six months, the ignored warnings were called “conspiracy theories”.


Nixon was impeached and pushed out of office for covering up the operation to wiretap the phones of the political opposition to listen in to their conversations.


Now, we have a case of two administrations connected with two different political parties, engaging in wiretapping everybody in the nation, not just around the world, and intercepting the communications of ALL of us.




Europe is of course acting all indignant, like they would never do such a thing, but the same watchmen who warned about what the NSA is doing have also fingered the Europeans.


Europeans, Echelon is yours too. Western nations trade intelligence, but they also spy on each other. We know this. But this puts some meat to those bones.




No wonder exposed political operatives and politicians don’t like the New Media. The cyber-security flap is all about getting control, however they can. Copyright, patents, security, they’ll use anything to be able to have the Chinese-style “flip switch” that Joe Lieberman pined for, to be able to shut down the Internet with a button controlled from the White House.


The Chinese had a Cultural Revolution too, were upwards of 20 million were killed for thinking different, with a bunch of personal grudges thrown in, no doubt. What makes the Lieberman think he can get an Internet switch without a cultural revolution government?




Proverbs 15:3
The eyes of the Lord are in every place, beholding the evil and the good.


Luke 8:17
For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad.


Galatians 6:7
Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.


Isaiah 1:18
Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.


Revelation 3:20
Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.



Ron Paul On The House Floor In 1984 Warning Us About The Coming Computer Surveillance State – Liberty Crier

June 10, 2013

It took till 2013 to break open into a little bit of coverage in Old Media, though…


May 31, 2013
President Nixon meets with China's Communist P...

President Nixon meets with China’s Communist Party Leader, Mao Tse-Tung, 02/29/1972 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


From a libertarian email list:


Quote: An Evil Banker


“Whatever the price of the Chinese revolution [an indirect reference to millions killed] , it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose… The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history,”


David Rockefeller: The New York Times on August 10, 1973

From Trutherator:

Remember that U.S. President Richard Nixon’s Secretary of State Henry Kissinger orchestrated Richard Nixon’s “opening up” to China and the later recognition of Mao’s officially atheist brutal mass murdering dictatorship as the “legitimate” government of China. (It certainly was the “de facto” government of the mainland China territory).

That was the Nixon that I barely remember as a kid, did a trip as Vice President Nixon to the islands of Quemoy and Matsu to show solidarity with the Nationalists that had taken over the island of Taiwan and that claimed those two tiny islands near the mainland.

That was the Nixon that got his political creds denouncing Communists.

In the last couple of decades, Kissinger had also called for the Republican Party to “widen its tents” and welcome members from the left wing, but of course he did not say it that way. He also some time later called for a softening of policy toward Cuba. But that initiative was met head-on by Cubans in Miami, especially one influential guy, Mas Canosa, who apparently used contacts with powerful people in Washington to halt that direction in policy.

(Just reporting here. I might advocate opening up to Cuba. A flood of Americans doing tourism in Cuba just might blow open the political landscape. Nothing like a trading in bunch of goodies to promote trade if people don’t get shot at. Vietnam is a big trading partner today.)



This Tax-Exempt Group Had No Trouble at All with the IRS

May 25, 2013


The Barack H. Obama Foundation (BHOF) was established in 2008 by Abon‘go Malik Obama, the half-brother of U.S. President Barack Obama. Abon’go, a Kenyan-born Muslim with twelve wives, created the foundation in memory of his (and President Obama’s) biological father, Barack H. Obama (1936-82) of Nyan’goma Kogelo village in Kenya.

Then it points out the claims of the Foundation for what it does and the lack of evidence for any of it, and then the punchline:

From 2008-11, BHOF operated illegally as a nonprofit group and falsely claimed tax-exempt status—for which it had not yet formally applied. The foundation finally submitted its 2010 application for nonprofit, tax-exempt status on May 23, 2011; seven days later, it submitted its filings for 2008 and 2009. Within just one month of these filings—on June 26, 2011—Lois Lerner, the senior official who headed the IRS‘s tax-exempt organizations office, signed paperwork granting tax-exempt status to BHOF. This promptness represented a stark contrast to the experience of many conservative organizations that, beginning in 2010, had been intentionally forced (by Lerner’s office) to wait more than three years, in some cases, for approval. Moreover, Lerner broke with the norms of tax-exemption approval by making BHOF’s tax-exempt status retroactive to December 2008.

According to Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center: “The Obama Foundation raised money on its web page by falsely claiming to be a tax deductible. This bogus charity … had not even applied and yet subsequently got retroactive tax-deductible status.” Boehm described Abon’go Malik Obama’s attempt to raise money under the nonprofit banner as “common law fraud and potentially even federal mail fraud.”

MEANTIME, the forgotten brother who lives in a Kenya slum on less than a dollar a month:

One commenter noted that the President’s half-brother lives on “change”… He probably is hoping for more change….

Why does the President keep his distance from his Kenyan family? Why did the sycophants never try to do any articles on the President’s extended family in Kenya? True, they don’t usually go after the family stories too much, but they have avoided this one more than they avoided other presidents’ families. Is it just the distance? What do you think?

Why doesn’t the New York Times or Washington Post go after Obama’s school records? They pushed real hard to get all they could about Bush’s history, after all…

From Joe Nocera of NYT, a bit of “sanity” about a better way to stop most mass killings (and a personal note)

December 30, 2012

Anti-ACLU-2 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Finally, a bit of sanity creeps into a New York Times editorial:

Mr. Nocera points out in the article that during the 1970s and 1980s there was a big move to “de-institutionalize” the mentally ill. Much of this was done by the ACLU purportedly motivated by protecting the rights of the mentally ill against abusive detainment.

The result was that the individuals who lacked the capacity to exercise rational judgment about the need for their own care were given the power to make decisions about their need for care.

This is a personal story for me, as there was a close family member who was in and out of treatment in clinics, hospitals, group homes, locked-down care facilities in centers for study of such cases. Especially after he reached majority age, he was often able to sign himself out of such places, even after he had been initially brought there by police after acting in ways that presented a clear danger to himself or to others.

It was a source of frustration over the years. During puberty and adolescence, during growth spurts and hormone changes, it was evident to me that doctors sometimes found it difficult to find the proper dosage of one or another med he was taking, even after he himself overcame the reluctance.

I did not like the idea at first of him getting a diagnosis and getting drugs instead of learning to live and cope but after a couple of what I call “episodes”, I relented to the probable need for it. My reluctance had to do with his domestic circumstances in growing up that I figured may have unduly influenced his behavior habits, which manifest among many adolescents in similar “episodes”, and seeing too much eagerness in some authorities and authority figures to administer a drug as first resort when there are other and sometimes better solutions.

But I had seen other situations in which one fellow mission worker, who was “normal” in all respects, became delusional after she skipped her medicine one day. That clinched it that there are cases where it is a matter of a physical problem located in the area of the brain, although I still know there have been cases of demonic possession as well, and some of those I understand have been documented.

Years later, the news came to me that she had been healed, her body -including her brain- had healed, and she no longer needed the prescriptions, and had re-married.

Praise God for healing.

So that gave me hope in the situation closer to me, but it ended much more sadly. I love him and miss him, but I also know that he loved Jesus, he had eternal life, and that in 98 percent of his days were full of sweetness and light and fun with the kids around him. He affected a great many lives for the better, as I saw with the pleasant surprise of how many came to say goodbye to him.

Joe McCarthy and history – real history

July 15, 2012
Description: Newspaper clipping USA, Woodrow W...

Description: Newspaper clipping USA, Woodrow Wilson signs creation of the Federal Reserve. Source: Date: 24 December 1913 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Personal insults are ridiculously useless with me, militant atheists and anti-creationists and people who think government is the answer to all social and economic ills have already nullified it. I’m immune to it now, I was the brunt of the bullying and the insults  all through K-12, and that was enough.

The “low blows” ever after following WWII to this day have been from media, textbooks, broadcast, high school and college professors, who told us a backwards inside-out history.

Joe McCarthy was right, there were Communists and spies infiltrating the US State Department. The nice, benevolent “Uncle Joe” of the 1930’s New York Times meant us no harm, his people were prosperous, and we ought to be more like them. By which they meant Joe Stalin, of course.

That’s also history, another “low” for sure. We were lied to all through school. Joe McCarthy is the one who is made the victim of his hearings and investigations, along with anybody else who dares question the “wisdom” of central planning for the nation, solving all the problems from the planners in D.C.

What else have the Powers That Be told us that is a lie?

Battleship Maine, Gulf of Tonkin, syphilis experiments, Operation Paper Clip, the Great FDR Yalta Giveaway of Eastern Europe, western capital infusions to save the Bolsheviks, the Alger Hiss United Nations charter (“Benedict Arnold signs peace with Britain”)… The Federal Reserve Act would put big bankers in their place, they told us.. The income tax would never apply to anybody making less than $600,000 they told us in 1913 (when you could get one ounce of gold for $25 from the government). In 2012, it takes $38,125,680 to get the gold that $600K got you back then.).

Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, no nation-building (2000), Fast and Furious, “Arab spring”, “If you like your insurance that you have right now you’ll be able to keep it”, no taxes for anybody making under $250K, the most transparent administration in history, a new attitude toward Latin America, NDAA respects constitutional protections, it’s not a tax, it is a tax, it’s not a tax.. If I don’t turn this economy around in four years, I deserve to be a one-term president… Honduras 2009 was an illegal coup..

Too many lies….

Billionaire tax hike advocates: Shut up and just hire us instead!

July 3, 2012

This shows what’s wrong with believing the polls without thinking between the lines.

Similarly, a mid-April CBS News/New York Times poll found that 56 percent of all voters (and 57 percent of independents) said the “best way to promote economic growth” was to raise taxes on the wealthy and “spend more on education and the nation’s infrastructure.” A CNN/ORC poll conducted around the same time found 68 percent of voters (and 67 percent of independents) agreed “the tax system benefits the rich and is unfair to the ordinary working man or woman.”
These polls are rigidly consistent with every internal Obama campaign poll and the overwhelming reaction of focus groups. With an assurance that may startle hand-wringing Democrats, Team Obama doesn’t believe the campaign has been fully joined and Romney has not been remotely tested on his fidelity to GOP tax orthodoxy. Obama and his top advisers are certain—and they exude airy nonchalance in the face of intra-party vapors to prove it—that Romney is the perfect vessel for their tax-villainy argument

You might think it also shows how inept Republicans are on the tax issue, but credibility and hidden lines in legislation and enforcement have themselves wrapped around it tighter than a professionally gift-wrapped box of goodies.

Most big-name Republicans are thinking that if they blew the whistle on Obama’s weakest points on the subject of taxes and the rich and poor, they would expose themselves.

Major Garrett missed the point in the linked article, I think.

But a lot of pollsters don’t miss it. They could blow the whistle on the scam but that would be biting the hand that feeds them.

Okay, okay, here’s the trick, and the irony, and the sarcasm, and the scam.

If you ask me whether “the tax system benefits the rich and is unfair to the ordinary working man or woman”, you bet that in less than one instant I would agree as fast as I could. I don’t know who could honestly disagree with it, for one reason or the other, except a few who might recognize the use somebody’s going to make of the answer. By that I mean there might be some people who recognize that if they say they agree, it will be viewed as saying they are for “raising taxes on the rich”.

The whole thing is unfair to everybody when government is in the middle, because they are the absolute worst middleman between somebody with money and somebody without it. A lot of Mafia dons do better work with the money they steal from other people, and a lot of that is money they get from people voluntarily, like with the drugs and illegal betting and such things. Taxes are not voluntary.

But it’s worse than all that.

The tax system we have in the USA right now is unfair and benefits the rich because while the middle class has to pay them, many of the very biggest and richest investors do not. Warren Buffet blew the whistle on himself, if fact, but he left out some of the most important factors.

He pays a lower percentage than his secretary for two reasons. He has an army of tax attorneys at beck and call, who it is fair to presume not only know how to squeeze the best for the boss out of the “tax system”, and his companies, but also presumably help write the laws.

And note the lying deceit in Buffet’s demand for more and higher estate taxes from this tycoon. In Nebraska, higher estate taxes would kill off family farms faster than anything, as they already do, along with a tax and regulation system that big agribusiness has little problem with.

When CNBC or FBC want to know how something will affect businesses, they interview the CEO’s of the very biggest companies. But where it counts most is for the small businesses. Sure, some of the tax and borrow revenues in government, all of them in fact almost, hurt business big and small, but not equally.

So, we agree, the present tax system isn’t fair, we need more investment and innovation in areas like laser technology, medicine –especially natural remedies and nutrition-based preventive education, good academic education in general, housing, cold-fusion technology, and the economy in general. But most of us among the poor and middle class do not have the resources for it. So we need to unleash the investment power of those who have it.

To invest, though, they won’t know how much they’ll be able to actually use, unless they reasonably know they will have it. So if they are sitting on it, the fastest way to get them to actually invest it is to let them know you’ll leave them alone.

If they can invest it, they’ll hire the rest of us. Why wouldn’t they? Does that sound so complicated?

It’s not our money anyway, unless it is ours. Tell Buffet that’s all nice and good, but he doesn’t speak for the rest of us. We want hypocrites that preach at us to tax them more along with the other billionaires to SHUT UP AND USE THAT MONEY TO HIRE US AND INVEST.

After all, not all his billionaire peers make so much money from the largesse of politicians and demagogues. The Buffet business style has lost all its shiny glory.

And to tell their lobbyists to get the politicians to get their hands off and leave it alone!

“Thou shalt not steal.” That should have been the Republican Party answer to Buffet’s millionaire tax plan. But they can’t because they believe in the same taxation policy for their own ends.

Except for the ones that don’t. There are a small handful in Congress today that want Washington DC to stop stealing so much from the economy. They deserve attention, and they deserve more like colleagues.

Related articles: