The right to determine whether smoking will or will not be permitted in establishments is being taken away from the private business owners and managers of hotels, restaurants, and bars.
The police forces and judicial systems fail miserably in stopping robbery and violent crime. Our homes are no longer safe, but instead of correcting this, it will become a crime to smoke in public. Will the same dunces who cannot enforce other laws somehow enforce this?
In the meantime, our rights are trampled upon again, in our government's open defiance of the Constitution which it is sworn to uphold. We have lost both the right to safety in our homes and our right to light up a cigarette when we get frustrated with it.
Perhaps the defiance called for is that voiced by the founding fathers of our nation, who held that the individual should be in defiance of a government which fails to recognize the God-given rights of its citizens.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Taxes Do Not "Cost" the Government Anything
From: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Business/Story?id=7562814&page=2
"Everything is on the table, including the tax treatment of health care plans," said Baucus. Limiting the tax exclusion for health benefits would be a ready source of revenue. The current exclusion costs the federal government $150 billion per year in revenue and more than $200 billion per year if payroll taxes are included in the calculation." (emphasis mine)
Since when does not taxing individuals COST the government anything? From reading this you would think that the government pays people money by not taxing them. Let's get something straight here. Taxes cost individuals money. Not taxing individuals costs the government nothing.
It is not a "cost" when the politicians do not get their rotten hands on the money that rightly belongs to individuals, unless and until the duly-elected officials legally pass tax laws. These tax laws then COST the INDIVIDUAL hard-earned money.
This is pure brainwashing to dupe individuals into believing that their hard-earned dollars belong to the government. This is not news reporting, but totalitarian propaganda.
Let us say here what is really happening: "Adding a new tax on health benefits would be a ready source of revenue to pay for only a fraction of the cost of the proposed government-run health care system, while discouraging private alternatives, especially among small businesses for whom providing health benefits become un-affordable. Taxing the untaxed health benefits of workers can bring in $150 billion per year, and more than $200 billion per year if payroll taxes are included in the calculation, to provide money for the politicians to spend instead of us."
"Everything is on the table, including the tax treatment of health care plans," said Baucus. Limiting the tax exclusion for health benefits would be a ready source of revenue. The current exclusion costs the federal government $150 billion per year in revenue and more than $200 billion per year if payroll taxes are included in the calculation." (emphasis mine)
Since when does not taxing individuals COST the government anything? From reading this you would think that the government pays people money by not taxing them. Let's get something straight here. Taxes cost individuals money. Not taxing individuals costs the government nothing.
It is not a "cost" when the politicians do not get their rotten hands on the money that rightly belongs to individuals, unless and until the duly-elected officials legally pass tax laws. These tax laws then COST the INDIVIDUAL hard-earned money.
This is pure brainwashing to dupe individuals into believing that their hard-earned dollars belong to the government. This is not news reporting, but totalitarian propaganda.
Let us say here what is really happening: "Adding a new tax on health benefits would be a ready source of revenue to pay for only a fraction of the cost of the proposed government-run health care system, while discouraging private alternatives, especially among small businesses for whom providing health benefits become un-affordable. Taxing the untaxed health benefits of workers can bring in $150 billion per year, and more than $200 billion per year if payroll taxes are included in the calculation, to provide money for the politicians to spend instead of us."
Monday, May 4, 2009
The "Tax Break" Lie
Take the headline to the Reuters news story "Obama Seeks End of Tax Breaks for US Firms Overseas" that just appeared on the CNBC website. As my buddy Nikhil Akkaraju points out, creative wording can effectively brainwash the reader or listener.
Take, for example, the term "tax break," This is a term which projects socialist thinking into the mind of the listener.
It implies that everyone owes taxes, and that the government, or some politician in the government, somehow gives people, or takes away from them, a "break" from the taxes we are forced by legislation to pay. The mentioned headline makes our current leader a champion who eliminates any of these undeserved "breaks" for some businesses. This is semantic bullshit.
In reality, our president simply wishes to tax us more. So say it.
So let's word this correctly: "Obama Seeks to Tax US Firms Overseas."
And watch out for other socialist catch phrases like "affordable housing" (housing for those who can't afford it) and references to "the less fortunate" (implying wealth comes from luck rather than sweat).
Take, for example, the term "tax break," This is a term which projects socialist thinking into the mind of the listener.
It implies that everyone owes taxes, and that the government, or some politician in the government, somehow gives people, or takes away from them, a "break" from the taxes we are forced by legislation to pay. The mentioned headline makes our current leader a champion who eliminates any of these undeserved "breaks" for some businesses. This is semantic bullshit.
In reality, our president simply wishes to tax us more. So say it.
So let's word this correctly: "Obama Seeks to Tax US Firms Overseas."
And watch out for other socialist catch phrases like "affordable housing" (housing for those who can't afford it) and references to "the less fortunate" (implying wealth comes from luck rather than sweat).
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)