tax the rich cry the dem/libs

Tax the rich because they are bad, cry the dem/libs.

The fight between the working class and the rich is nothing new. Numerous authors through centuries have written about this very topic. One of the best authors, who establishment media, schools and the politicos will never reference, is Frederick Bastiat. He penned a number of essays. One of the best pieces of literature ever written is, What is Seen and What is not Seen. Bastiat is most famous for, The Law.

There has always been competition between the rich and the working; the Lords and Commons, the elite non-working, and the poor. Class struggle is nothing new.

In these very days, dem/lib, anti-progressive liars continue this attack on select rich; not themselves of course. The contention is that capitalist exploitation is bad, but they are quick to discount the fact that government is the biggest, most powerful and dangerous capitalist entity in America. Government does what capitalists do; it uses capital.

On the Rush Limbaugh radio talk show a young male, Carl, called in to attack Rush and the rich. Carl’s proposal was that the rich should pay more. Why? Why should anyone pay at all? Mexico has no federal income tax. Great nations through the whole of history, recent history, have had no federal income taxes.

Carl’s presumptions against the rich are stupefying. The tone, the resentment and attack are presumptions that the rich are wealthy because they cheated people and deserve to pay more, they should be forced to be more generous. Isn’t that a horrible irony, forced generosity by action of the greatest antithesis of generosity! This craving to force to generosity completely disqualifies the force of imposed generosity as a rational, honest, unbiased assessor and agent of any beneficent behaviors. Would cheating include lying? How do politicians get their wealth? Did Carl presume any of them, especially Obama, was a liar, or did he just ignore a huge demographic of important data? This seems to be the dem/lib grassroots. Dem/lib grassroots movements have been around for as long as this country was founded. Some call it monarchy. Some call it bureaucracy. It is all deception, and theft by force.

Where did Carl learn his mistakes? I am not saying the rich did not prosper by immoral means, in fact I think capitalism, like communism and socialism, is founded on erroneous principles.

What is amazing is that the parameters of "rich" include politicians, but dem/lib idiot citizens exclude them. Why? Is it because this is the class that pays them? Yes, this is the class that turns law against itself to be the source of injustice against select groups. Could this be considered profiling? Being called a taxpayer is profiling. This socialist grand dis-illusion is the foundation of all socialist lies, that the wealth is shared. In actuality it is the means of transfer of wealth to the lazy, dishonest, dem/lib idiots, like Carl. More discussion of this another time.

Does Carl wish for the judiciary to investigate all big companies? Do dem/libs want this? No, probably not. It is not fair for me to presume the dem/libs want this. But then, how do the dem/libs expect to convince Americans to tax the rich more unless the rich (excluding the politicos) deserve it? The dem/libs have to make enemies, economic terrorists, thieves and cheats of them. My supposition that the dem/libs want to have the judiciary investigate them all, is not quite true, but valid to a degree nonetheless. The dem libs/ work very hard to attach guilt, without trial, to capitalism, because the dem/libs are as dishonest and exploitive, maybe more, than those they routinely attack. How much would this cost? Is Carl filing charges against anyone or just hoping someone else will press government with his spurious presumptions? This is all dem/lib liars have; collusion, starting with the Master collaborator, Obama (or those that made him, or his speech writers. It is so confusing). What would Carl be looking for, or does he believe rich companies should be presumed guilty by everyone? By what standards does he presume their guilt, or by what parameters, if not by laws, does he judge them? Is Capitalism itself the criminal? Does Carl, the dem/lib idiocy representative, not realize that the thousands of lazy, do-nothing government millionaires, actually do less than any capitalist corporate CEO (maybe, maybe not? Who knows for sure?). Government people do much less, except party, glut themselves on wine, women, song, food, parties, travel and all luxuries the people, the working citizens, are denied, and fund. How much of this luxurious lifestyle has Carl bilked from the working people? College costs a lot more than Carl paid, and he wants more. Does Carl know the injustice of protectionism, or is it only protectionism when it is not in his financial favor? Does this baby buffoon know what protectionism is? Has Carl ever had a job? For whom has Carl worked, any big companies, anyone, or just government? Anyone who works in government does not work for government. Government is a thing used by people to buy others to work for them.

How does Carl presume to judge? Carl knows nothing except what he has been spoon fed, by people willing to use his ignorance and innocence; those who will capitalize on his ignorance. The schools where Carl was pseudo educated capitalized on his money, or the State’s ability to steal from working people and give to idiots that have no idea how they managed to get a free ride in school. How does one know the evils of crime at so young an age without having been directly involved himself? How does one still in intelligence diapers, and having not the first idea of an injustice committed, learn to see crime judged judiciously as sages of judicial experience? Either Carl has no experience to remain above reproach and know justice from justice’s perspective, or Carl is corrupt. Plato clarified the juxtaposition, and Carl, and his ilk, whether 18 years old or 90 years old, proves his own corruption by opening his mouth and asking for something that someone else owns. Carl knows nothing except corruption by experience. Maybe Carl wants King Obama to judge everything, or maybe he believes Obama already knows? Is it a safe presumption that Obmination really can judge judiciously from justice’s perspective, or does Obamination, the liar, judge from corruption’s side? Isn’t it obvious, and the whole country has awakened to his fraud.

Maybe, and this is probably Carl’s fraud, like all dem/libs, he knows Obamination, or any liberal monarch, cannot possibly know much, but Carl wants government to "create" law to seize the wealth of people that work. Carl wants to use government to steal, and then pretend he is morally superior. Theft is theft, Carl!

How can Carl simply reiterate the lame arguments and presumptions of seasoned liars who willingly sacrifice the lives and blood of generations of youth, Carl included, for self-representation? How can Carl think himself smart, capable of a judgement, when so easily used? Carl is shy 20 years of experience and a full lifetime of study to be able to reiterate an argument designed to massacre his generation, himself included. And yet the masses, Carl included, struggle, armed with half truths, in behalf of seasoned liars, thieves, rapists and murderers, against the "silver medal" political athletes, corporations; gold always in the hands of government. Arguing capitalism against communism and vice versa increases both. Familiarity of both forms of pillagers’ dogma entrenches both forms of compliance in the souls of all. Carl is a puppet, a paid puppet with a definite conflict of interest.

It is always the lazy, dishonest have nots that want to share with the haves (we just defined the new congress people). The con/repub persons have mystified congress and presumed the new congressmen have some morals, some form of idyllic purity and the experience to coincide, whereas it is probably a safer bet they are on the corrupted side). When "sharing" is done by force it is immoral.

Sharing is giving, not taking, especially by force. When done by hidden force of government, sanctioned by presumption, it is reprehensible. This is what Carl and his dem/lib miscreants continually push. Any being with the slightest degree of human self-respect should never openly admit he or she supports such gross inequality before the law.

But Carl’s argument is different, he presumes, in spite of 20 years of guided ignorance. Capitalism is the haves sharing the wealth of the masses with themselves. BUT NO! It is NOT the same. It is not done by force or presumption. Purchase is voluntary. Capitalist self-sharing is not done by force or violence, rather it is done by fraud and lobbying. Capitalist self-sharing is done by inequality before the law, like government. In a true free market there is no inequality before the law, there is no force and there is no extortion. Does Carl own a cell phone? Who made him buy it? Nobody. Carl voluntarily submitted to inequality before the law of commerce.

Carl claims to want to MAKE the big companies pay more, but he gives them power by his voluntary subservience. If everyone decided to share the wealth of the big corporations they would stop buying. Maybe Carl is talking about price gouging, exchange of goods and services for a heavy unfair price. Is Carl talking about corporations or government? Government is the worst gouging and thief of wealth; infinitely worse and absolutely more dangerous than corporation in all ways. But Carl sees that government, he thinks, can be manipulated to steal wealth of others to give to himself, and he does it with no regard to his own gross hypocrisy. After all, he gains. He is a failure as a capitalist, not being able to capitalize on the power of government, so he lies to further his own power to use another to steal. That is the key, otherwise Carl and the dem/lib slaves would go after government itself.

What is the difference, Carl, of big companies not contributing their fair share, or you making less money, and and then you steal from others so you can avoid contributing your fair share? Isn’t this kind of hypocritical, Carl? Like the money that never was income, as you claim it as a loss, the mney you never made that you did not pay to government in taxes, is a tax fraud. Apply the principles consistently and see the hypocrisy in yourself, Carl! So, you want to be above the law too. Carl's plan is theft, organized theft. Go to hell Carl and take your sub-human sub-values with you.

Governments, the haves, share the meager wealth of the masses by force, and that, in and of itself, is crime. Why is it different, in Carl’s, and the dem/lib’s little minds that a crime is not a crime when committed against a nationalized culprit or criminal? Just because a million people point a finger of guilt, there is no crime without proof and trial. But dem/libs want guilt without trial because guilt provides justification for theft without risking dismissal of trial without evidence: herein lies the crime of the dem/libs and government corporate thieves. It is unlawful and immoral to presume guilt of the haves, and seize by government, and it is unlawful and immoral for government to pretend to steal from the capitalists to give to themselves under the pretense of stealing from big business to give to the masses. It is also unlawful to steal by taxation.

What is worse, to steal a million from one and re-distribute one dollar to a million people, or steal a dollar from a million people and give it to government? Government does not steal from the poor and give to the wealthy, it gives to themselves. Government does not steal from the wealthy, conversely, and give to the poor. It gives to itself. The fallacy that government actually shares the wealth with the poor and disadvantaged is ages old. It is so damn boring, it is irritating talking to anyone who thinks there is some truth to fair and just redistribution of wealth. Can’t dem/lib liars promote something new, like hope, audacity of hope or some other smoke screen for the same damned lying false useless, self-serving predatorial lies of shared wealth? But this is how the inequality of socialism advances. The opponents get tired and/or legislated out of the picture. Advancement by irritating whining and nagging should be against the law. The redistribution fallacy of socialism, whether it be called dem/lib democracy or con/repub republicanism, is still a lie. This is what led to Carl’s leap of stupidity from the fry pan into reiterated fire of lies. This, again, is the history of the world’s governments. In America we have equality (almost non-existent) before the law so the have nots cannot unify and lobby government to legislate against the haves. To balance it the haves cannot lobby government either. Both sides do when they should not. Both sides claim moral superiority when it is crime no matter how much propaganda and how many supportive agencies add to the fraud.

Now Carl’s problem is that he wants government to slap a big fine on big business because it has too much. Maybe Carl should ask government to slap a big fine on itself, being the biggest corporation in this country. And the US government, not the Federal Government of the United States of America, has immunity and is as corrupt, if not more, than any one of the worst big companies in America. How could Carl be so naive, or dishonest?

All Carl needs to do, as usual, is state that he thinks big businesses have too much money, and tell government to make them out to be criminal, and there we go, a reason to steal.

But what if corporations have too much money? Is it really anyone’s business? If they are traded publicly then profit is a matter of public record. Has Carl ever wondered how much money Meg Whitman makes? She spent 22 million dollars for a $200,000 per year job. Where did Meg get this kind of money and why would she spend so much for so little? Has Carl ever wondered how inefficient this is? Isn’t this kind of waste criminal, Carl? If not criminal it is certainly wasteful, and as such, criminal in Carl’s eyes, and justification for organized government facilitated theft. This is what Carl wants but he is a coward. You see there is a bully on the playground and no-one will challenge the bully. Instead dishonest people see opportunity to steal from others using the bully. This is what Carl wants. He wants the bully to steal from a smaller, weaker playground user, because Carl isn’t strong enough himself to steal or even attempt to steal from a weaker person. To justify it Carl has to convince himself that the weaker person is evil and deserves to lose what little (or what surplus) he has. Granted, big business is not necessarily weak, but all business is weak compared to an organization of the magnitude and power of government that can legislate against markets and in favor of protecting dishonest, pillagers hiding behind the fists of the playground bully.

Did Carl lobby Rush to promote equality before the law, for government? How would Carl act if a major corporation could write laws that force people to buy something like a cell phone? This is inequality before the law, above the law. Where is Carl on this uneven playing field? How crazy would Carl get if he were forced to buy a cell phone for $50, but only got a $5 battery? This would be cause for mayhem, revolution. This is what government does. Would Carl get off his lazy, lying ass and fight or complain to Rush to get government to resist its own tyranny? Carl is an unevenly educated idiot. But he is more a liar. Such hypocrisy is the result of years, decades of think-tank hatred of the people. Government wastes more than any person, corporation or organization, and should feel the wrath of Carl’s attacks as much as big business does. Did Carl lobby government to steal from itself? If, according to Carl and pretend intelligence of the dem/libs, the waste of resources by big business is criminal, then the excessive waste of resources by government is a capital offense. Add to this inequality before the law, the power to legislate its own wealth, and destroy the wealth of others, and a monster is created, and Carl fed it. Did Carl petition Rush to attack waste or just an entity that is an easy mark?

The injustices and deceit Carl tried to throw to the public could produce a long book of responses and discussion. Carl was lucky Rush did not cut him off and tell the punk, liar, thief to get a job. Hot shot Carl did not mention how much he sacrificed. Hot shot Carl did not mention the taxes he paid, or pays. Hot shot, lying Carl did not mention who is paying him to call and waste valuable air time. There are so few real dem/libs, and they are embarrassed by the complete and extensive stupidity of Fuhrer Obama, that so few ever speak out; it is not possible Carl was a real human being, calling with his own beliefs. Who is Carl working for?

Commune is the root of community and communism, but the two are vastly different. Communism is a lie. A community party on a blocked off street where friends and neighbors share and voluntarily contribute for the good time and enjoyment of all is very different from a party that forces the community residents to contribute and then blocks them from the enjoyment and good time. Communism claims it is community for the benefit of all, but nowhere in the world has it ever provided a sense of community for all, rather a select few. It certainly is not voluntary. When it is forced it completely falls under a different category, tyranny. Other forms of forced community and sacrifice for nothing includes Nazism, Monarchy, Church, Rome, Empire, Republic, Regime, Oligarchy, but never community. Which of these scenarios best describes Obama’s community?

My guess is that Carl works for the Obama sense of community. Sean Hannity entertains these people, it is his job to lend an ear to, and provide a degree of credibility where none exists, but Rush is usually above this. This Carl was a cut above the usual idiots Hannity entertains. I am not saying Rush isn’t a little lost himself, easily done after spending so many years living in the realm of cancerous toxicity of the establishment propaganda machine, but Rush is ok. Hannity is dishonest, a supporter of tyranny, and a fool.

I think Carl is a very good worker and Rush may have been fooled. Maybe not. Either way Rush probably does not care. Carl gave Rush a chance to clarify a few things.

Many will laugh, point a finger and claim this conspiracy theory, again. So what if it is? It isn’t. This definitely qualifies as a social studies lesson, history, political and philosophy discussion, but when an establishment media personality throws that con spire word into his or her discussion or critique, the readers are supposed to disavow the remainder of the argument. Wrong! Don’t be stupid. Don’t be so easily manipulated. Take each and every point I have made in this article and judge it for its own truth and logic. I am not a conspiracy theorist, and again, so what if I were? Being called names does not make my message, my hypotheses less credible. Because someone else takes an easy tactic to discredit my studies, explanations and thoughts does not mean he or she has any more credibility than I. In fact isn’t it an admission that he or she has no credibility at all! Another punk idiot with no brain, no soul or humanity.

Carl states, "We spent a trillion dollars on tax cuts." What? WE? Who is we Carl? How much did you spend on tax cuts? What Carl means, and he has been coached to tell this particular lie in a very tacit manner, is, ‘a trillion dollars were not taken from the rich and I got none.’ Pardon me, dear readers, I err. How could I write that he got none of nothing? I admit my mistake in claiming a characteristic of a nothing. How can a judgement of a nothing be made or described? How can a tax cut produce a spending? How do you spend a trillion dollars on a negative? Carl? Where did you learn that retarded illogic?

Carl and the dishonest dem/libs operate from a very dangerous presumption. They presume that everything belongs to government. This is not dangerous to government people or those, like Carl, who try to align themselves with government. It is dangerous to people that own property. A book or computer is property, Carl. Do you voluntarily give up your property to State? No. Carl wants others to suffer this, but he sides with government so he too can be above the law; so he too can benefit from inequality before the law. When government lets, allows, an entity to live, Carl considers this a mistake by government that needs to be corrected, by government, the great equalizer. The fact is that government is so inefficient it cannot possibly correct anything. It cannot come close to equality or fairness even by 10%. This is one of the few absolutes in the universe, and Carl, like all dem/libs, knows it. Their pretense at utopia, equality, and share the wealth is one lie after another, supported by force, and absolutely and irrefutably, CRIMINAL, Carl!

Where is the law that originally stated a tax cut belonged to government anyway? This is the fallacy the con/repubs help fabricate. This is a hard principle to understand because we are dealing with non-existing propositions, ideas, only, really. Suppose a trillion dollar tax had been presumed. Where did it come from? It had to be first assessed at one point. It did not just always lie in wait, for companies and corporations to make a certain amount of money and then declare, Here I am, I exist, a law that says you must pay. This tax cut never existed. It was a proposal to tax more, and it was met with resistance and caution, and then not implemented. So a government person, of sub-humanness, used this idea that something was lost, or given away; or that a good idea, that would serve the nation, particularly do-nothing, know nothings like Carl trying to get something for his supreme nothingness, lied, again, to substantiate his ruthless rape of the nation by stating a corporation somehow managed to get away with paying less of its share. This is political economics. Do not forget what politics means. Politics is NOT representation of the wishes of the people. Politics is a forced idea. Politics, especially political correctness (why not representative correctness?), is an invasion of thought and ideal. Politics is a slow transformation (fast where propaganda is effective) from focus on the representative process, to a focus on the political self-absorption of a few that use, defraud, and force, for which the people pay dearly. Politics takes the efforts, thoughts, and mental energy from the masses and gives it to a few. The world revolves around those that claim one thing but in reality have seized every thought and every and fruits of the labors of others for themselves.

Carl claims, "...government is spending it on necessary infrastructure." That is a blatant lie and Carl, master buffoon working for lying dem/libs, knows it. Finishing the fence would have been infrastructure. But, who is spending it? Who is getting it? Are contractors getting it? Where is it going if contractors are getting money to build "stuff"? What was or is being built Carl? Where is this infrastructure? Maybe Carl, in his limited knowledge and experience, and massive ignorance, knows that 90%of all expenditures goes NOT to the people. Maybe Carl knows what a fraud and blood sucker government is? Carl knows. 10%, at best, of all income comes back to the people. Lie Carl lie! Maybe Carl meant the fence to keep illegal aliens out? Oh yeah, Barkyrama said it was complete. What a liar! A small percentage is complete but all the money was paid, to someone. Where did it go? Carl’s argument would include the idea that infrastructure projects and building would trickle down to the people through jobs. The money stayed in the hands of a few contractors, and Barky's buddies. Maybe Carl hopes to get some of this money, if any remains (NOPE!), for his efforts to help Obama bilk the nation? That is exactly how dem/lib thieves think. The money went nowhere. The money did NOT create jobs. The money built no infrastructure that people could use; o hospitals, no police stations, no jails, no public works, no newly created jobs. Where is Carl’s head? How can the poor eat and pay rent on Carl’s idealized public fraud system, government? Carl sees the poor living in penthouse suites. Get off your ass Carl, get out and give your money to the poor. Get out there Carl, argue with the new homeless waiting for public money to "trickle down". Someone will beat your ass, or kill you. Your sophistry kills people Carl! Go to hell!

And of course Carl thinks that government spending is good. He has this Disneyland fallacy in his head that government spending is good. Give $1,000 to a child. Send him to the store and he will buy what he wants for himself. On the way home, after he has purchased a candy bar for 10 times the value, because a "contractor" saw him coming, or because the contractor was related or a friend of the candy-store owner. On the way home he will drop money, lose the milk, kick a cat that gets in his way, and throw a tantrum at home when told he failed. It was the other guy's fault that I spent too much, lost it on the way home, and gave it to the thieves hiding in the bushes. This is how terribly inefficient government, people in government, are. And the child purchasers, Carl and Barky, expect the world to kiss their butts and love him. The people have nothing for their sacrifices. The childish purchaser of public funds will beat people, make laws to hide his own incompetence, and now he wants more money to buy a tank so nobody can take his candy. He is a child in a giant’s body and very dangerous. This is government; people in government, and fools lobbying lies for gain, like Carl.