The FairTax Book: Saying Goodbye to the Income Tax and the IRS
Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 10 years, 5 months ago to Books
The FairTax Book: Saying Goodbye to the Income Tax and the IRS
Authors, Neal Boortz & Congressman John Linder
196 pages. ISBN 978-0-06-087549-7
This short book detailing the FairTax was a #1 New York Times Bestseller.
I looked through my library in search of and intending to write a review of a book that offered some solutions to our present problems. I believe this book fits the bill. If we wish to reform our government and reclaim our liberty there can be no more effective way than to remove the easily abused funding method. I have heard many suggestions and objections regarding this option. This book explores and answers them all.
The many seemingly insurmountable financial problems facing us make this option very attractive. From addressing the “Social Security tax, the Medicare tax, corporate income taxes, the death tax, the self-employment tax, the alternative minimum tax, the gift tax, capital gains taxes, tax audits, and some major headaches every April 15” this is the most fair, possible and workable solution. It is not the be all, end all, to all of our problems but it is likely the most effective first step we could take.
What would be the best way to fund our federal government? My preference has little probability of occurring, but this option has some chance of passing and is thus, I believe, the best option considering our present political climate. The proposal is fair; it treats all taxpayers equally and the benefits are manifold. The poor would not pay any more than they do now. The middle class and even the rich would benefit. The only losers are the grafters, special interests and lobbyists who care not that their efforts push the burdens of their successes on the backs of others.
Mr. Boortz and Congressman Linder have written a very important short read for anyone interested in learning about and promoting something that could really help. Mr. Boortz has retired from the radio and Congressman Linder retired from congress in 2011, but their book continues in the effort to promote the proposal.
Do you want to turbo charge our economy? Take back your liberty? Constrain the tyrants? Please read this book and investigate www.FairTax.org for detailed information about the proposal and how you can help. If you find it acceptable, then please urge your representatives in government to support the effort.
Respectfully,
O.A.
Authors, Neal Boortz & Congressman John Linder
196 pages. ISBN 978-0-06-087549-7
This short book detailing the FairTax was a #1 New York Times Bestseller.
I looked through my library in search of and intending to write a review of a book that offered some solutions to our present problems. I believe this book fits the bill. If we wish to reform our government and reclaim our liberty there can be no more effective way than to remove the easily abused funding method. I have heard many suggestions and objections regarding this option. This book explores and answers them all.
The many seemingly insurmountable financial problems facing us make this option very attractive. From addressing the “Social Security tax, the Medicare tax, corporate income taxes, the death tax, the self-employment tax, the alternative minimum tax, the gift tax, capital gains taxes, tax audits, and some major headaches every April 15” this is the most fair, possible and workable solution. It is not the be all, end all, to all of our problems but it is likely the most effective first step we could take.
What would be the best way to fund our federal government? My preference has little probability of occurring, but this option has some chance of passing and is thus, I believe, the best option considering our present political climate. The proposal is fair; it treats all taxpayers equally and the benefits are manifold. The poor would not pay any more than they do now. The middle class and even the rich would benefit. The only losers are the grafters, special interests and lobbyists who care not that their efforts push the burdens of their successes on the backs of others.
Mr. Boortz and Congressman Linder have written a very important short read for anyone interested in learning about and promoting something that could really help. Mr. Boortz has retired from the radio and Congressman Linder retired from congress in 2011, but their book continues in the effort to promote the proposal.
Do you want to turbo charge our economy? Take back your liberty? Constrain the tyrants? Please read this book and investigate www.FairTax.org for detailed information about the proposal and how you can help. If you find it acceptable, then please urge your representatives in government to support the effort.
Respectfully,
O.A.
The reason is the "Prebate". Under the Bortz plan low income people actually continue to pay no tax because they get a predetermined refund of the tax they would otherwise pay. So what you will end up with is the people who have income will pay the tax, and the rest will get a pass. What's so different with the system we have now, in terms of the end result? Not much.
A Flat Tax would require EVERYONE to pay something, and at a lower rate than the 21% under the Fair Tax. A Flat Tax wod require a rate somewhere in the 12% range.
I am fed up with 1/3 of the people in the US (according to the National Taxpayers Union; NTU.org) paying all the taxes and the other 2/3 getting a pass. Let's have a system where all people are expected to pay something, and maybe we will have fewer people with their hands out demanding free stuff from the government.
I'm still one who supports the "no representation without taxation" principle...
I have my preferences also. I would prefer to fund the federal government in the fashion it was funded to begin with, pre-income tax days, but that has less chance of happening. Additionally, that is one of the problems with the Flat Tax. Unless you can first remove the vote from the poor it has less chance of passing. I also find the fair tax more appealing as a privacy matter since one would no longer need to report their income to the bean counters. There is also the added benefit of avoiding the effort required to maintain the income records on the part of employers and taxpayers in order to comply with a flat tax, no matter how simple the forms. It is true that the poor would not pay taxes on below poverty level incomes, but everyone would receive the same pre-bate and the overall economic benefits would elevate more of the poor to above poverty level and produce more taxpayers. The flat tax does less about the embedded taxes and compliance issues that drive up the price of goods. As the studies cited in the book suggest it is likely the cost of goods under a fair tax would drop equal to the rate of taxation making it essentially tax free relative to our present system. This combined with your ability to keep your entire paycheck would mean more money in your hands. The flat tax still also has the disadvantage of any income tax in that people can and will continue to cheat, hide and shelter income from taxation, whereas the fair tax is harder to avoid. EVERYONE will have to pay at the retail level, even the underground economy, where most retailers, in most states, are already collecting state sales taxes.
No system short of no taxation is perfect. If you have solutions to these objections I would be most pleased to hear them.
Respectfully,
O.A.
Since the tax is part of the price for goods, everyone pays taxes.
For example: A low income family, middle income family, and wealthy family each go out and buy a new tv. Each of the tv's cost $500. Out of that $500, $105 is sent off as tax. So each family has paid their tax. No one is getting away with not paying. Thanks
johnf
This the same third who pay no taxes today will continue to pay little or none under the Fair Tax Prebate scheme.
There was a study done some years ago that showed that if every citizen and corporation paid just 10% in a flat income tax, 1) there would be more than enough money to fund the government, 2) you could truly eliminate the IRS since your tax would be taken directly from your paycheck every pay period based on what you earned that period, 3) the US would become more attractive for business since we would have a very low corporate tax rate, 4) we could eliminate the "progressive" (oppressive?) tax system that exists today, and 5) eliminate most if not all of the politics that is in constant play regarding how we pay for things.
Coupled with the Flat Tax would have to be a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution which would require the Federal Government to live within it's means, except during a time of war declared by a 3/4 supporting vote of the House of Representatives.
Programs to help the poor can still be put in place, but they would need to be funded and comply with the Balanced Budget. If you qualified for such a program, the benefits would NOT count as regular income for tax purposes. A Flat Tax would also eliminate the "unfunded mandates" that Congress is so fond of, by making Congress provide funding for any program within the constraints of a balanced budget, and force Congress to prioritize spending programs.
The 10% flat income tax could be included as part of the Balanced Budget Amendment, thus requiring another Constitutional Amendment to change it.
EVERYONE, including those at low income levels, benefits from the services provided by the Federal Government such as roads, schools, national defense, etc. ALL citizens should participate in funding these services.
http://fairtaxer.com/fairtax/the-fairtax...
johnf
It's a good book to check out.
Thanks
johnf
Somewhere back around 1970, a local paper in NJ ran an article about taxes, and naturally did not look beyond the end of their first sentences. Even then, a 7% tax on ALL income from ALL sources (i.e., NO loopholes) would have brought the IRS exactly the same number of dollars as the convoluted crap they had even back then.
I suggested a "floor" below which no tax would be collected... some relatively small multiple of an agreed-upon 'poverty' or 'minimum level' of income. With that, even in '70, I figured that a 10-13% 'tax on all income' would bring the IRS the same net dollars.
Of course, since they'd need SO MANY FEWER agents, things like that would probably push that optimum level of taxation down even lower.
It won't happen, though. CPAs may gripe, but everyone doing taxes for someone else will 'be hurt' and will oppose it, let alone the 'public servants' at the IRS who'd be facing massive layoffs, too.
They'd all convince Congress that making those 'simplifications' would be disastrous for the US economy.
Figures lie and liars figure and Follow the Money.
And remember my 33rd Law... http://www.plusaf.com/falklaws.htm#33rd
I'd prefer a replacement for the 16th amendment that nullifies the 16th, and asserts a flat sales (or transaction) tax; mandating that all goods and transactions must be taxed at the same percentage rate, and that no additional taxes may be applied for some goods/services but not others, and that it must never rise above 15% of the gross value of the transaction.
This addresses my biggest two concerns about taxation: limiting how much money the government takes to waste as they see fit, and preventing the government from using taxation to regulate behavior.
I would like a pay for services system also. The FairTax is only a stepping stone that has a modicum of support and a chance of passing. It is not my ideal system. Other nations have done so. States have done so. The flat tax is what the income tax started as and later became the monster we have now.
For a comparison: http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/The%20FairTax...
And for more side by side analysis choices:
http://www.fairtax.org/site/Search?Searc...
Have you read the book? It even has an answer to the reason the 16th amendment would not be a problem. http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/WhichComesFir...
I place great value on your opinion...
Respectfully,
O.A.
The problem with the flat tax is that it is a tax on income and that will eventually lead us right back to where we are now. Go back in history and look at how the income tax has grown. It started out looking very much like the flat tax.
You should check out a second book by Boortz called The Fairtax Explained.
johnf
johnf
MY flat tax would have all payroll flow through the IRS, which would keep a running balance of your total SALARY and direct deposit ALL of it back to your account UNTIL you reached the 'poverty level minimum' or whatever, after which 90%, give or take, would be remitted to your account. Computer-driven with no ifs ands or butts involved.
Just one way of keeping moochers and cheaters from gaming the system. No, not perfect by any means, but a starting/talking point.
Some time last year, I believe it was, there was a proposal in Switzerland to give EVERY citizen a certain minimum 'pay'... thousands of dollars... to ensure that nobody starved for lack of money.
Maybe it never got implemented, but the connection is that 'enlightened' societies (said tongue-in-cheek) often seem to try to do SOMETHING to 'help the needy.'
I saw the two 'methods' as having a kind of similarity. I do that kind of thing.
But "make no mistake about it..." MY favorite 'plan' would have NO deductions or subsidies, including price supports, for anyone (human or corporate.)
If you can't hack it on your own, (human OR corporate) try begging via Crowdsourcing or public charities, but in no way should/can you decide, even with a plurality or majority vote, to TAKE money from someone else for any reason, without their express agreement.
Better?
Thanks.
The government should never have gained the power to bean count the lot of us. They have abused this power to foment class warfare, and abused us with a considerable list of other punitive ways to fund their own cronyism. It was entirely foreseeable.
O.A.
Your fears are well-founded and justified by decades, if not millennia of people's experience with governments run amok.
I'd just like to point out that THAT part of the problem, although it may never be solved, is its own, separate issue. IF a 'floor level pay-no-income-tax' process were implemented, my suggestion would just be one possible way to manage it.
The overarching problem that you're describing still would need to be addressed, but an IRS that just did 'store and forward' and siphoning off the tax dollars only after the threshold is met WOULD work with the right controls, transparency (and opacity) which our current flock of government "leaders" would never allow to be put in place.
The engineering solution could work, but, as you aptly put it, the political/social roadblocks and corruption would certainly make success impossible.
When you figure out how to untie that Gordian Knot, please let us all know. I see that part of the 'solution' as impossible so long as the general electorate keeps returning the current batch of morons and crooks to office.
Also I am not sure I would be comfortable with the IRS having more control that they already have. The ongoing scandal in DC reinforces my belief. The second of the fairtax books explains very clearly why any tax on income places far to much power in DC and not in the hands of the public. The fairtax is a tax on outgo not income. I agree that no tax program is perfect but this one seems better that any I have heard of so far
Thanks
johnf
Unfortunately, in reality, most of these suggestions don't have the chances of the proverbial ice cube in hell because of the politicians and 'political realities' today.
Just like ISIS and Hamas, nothing will change until there's a popular uprising of the 'people' when they finally get fed up with the 'current state of affairs' and demand REAL change...
I don't expect that to happen in my lifetime, so I've gone to my own Gulch as much as possible, but hey, I only turn 69 this fall, so maybe there's a chance...
Cheers!
Thanks for a great discussion.
johnf
Quite right!
Thank you.
O.A.
Of course, we wouldn't have money for pointless wars, the welfare state or Obamacare - but then, working people would see a 20%-30% salary increase. You don't think THAT would cause the economy to surge?
"The power to tax involves the power to destroy," -- Chief Justice John Marshall
I say we remove from the Feral Government the power to destroy the People.
Unfortunately the banksters who run the fedgov, the major party, the candidate selection process, election vote counting, etc etc do not. They require the income tax as security for the debt they create from nothing and loan to the fedgov. It is their method for control and enslavement of the once free sovereign people of the States united.
They will never give it up without war,( and of course, they will finance the war.)
Imagine if even 1/100th of 1% of gun owners took a similar tack regarding oath-violating politicians? 10,000+ snipers working independently to take out politicians?
Entertainiing, educational, and recommended.
Warning: Adult theme with some graphic violence.
(Apologies if I have asked this same question before ;^)
Ross has a web site somewhere with commentary under the heading of "Ross in Range" (IIRC). Stories are almost as entertaining as UC.
If you haven't read "Absolved", you'll want to catch it. *You can find it on line.) The writing is better - and it has truly shaken some of the political types. (Guess that happens when you use the actual floor plan of a Federal fusion center in your description of a fictional attack that wipes out everyone in the center!) BTW, the author was instrumental in breaking the "Fast & Furious" story. He was on it for a full month before anyone in the lamestream press would even give it a second look. (Sort of like Drudge and the little blue dress - except from the press' perspective Oblowme can do no wrong.)
The first chapter is a real gripper and it continues to head slap you throughout!
I met the author about a year ago in a conference in Orlando. He said he's had a lot of questions raised by official types regarding the accuracy of some of his fictional descriptions (questions as in, "This is TOO accurate" or "How did you know about the senator's security arrangements?")
Vanderboegh is also the father of the "Three Percenters". He constantly warns federales that they're overreaching, and that they risk a second American Revolution. He cites the fact that during the first American Revolution, only 3% of Americans actually took the field against the British. Using 80 to 100 million as the number of current-day gun owners, and using the same 3%, Mike has posited that an army of over 2.4 million armed citizens would overwhelm the combined forces of all military and police in America.
The Southern Poverty Law Center says of Vanderboegh: "Mike Vanderboegh, a longtime leader and propagandist in the antigovernment “Patriot” movement, specializes in fiery rhetoric urging violent “self-defense” against a tyrannical, Constitution-flouting U.S. government determined to impose the Communist principles of gun control and universal health care." - so you KNOW he's one of the good guys!
He's more recently suggested that the government is pushing the People hard enough that there may be a backlash in which Harry Reid might get "his balls ripped off". ;-)
>> Mike Vanderboegh, the militia group leader who warned in a speech at the Bundy Ranch last month that the United States is on the verge of “civil war on a vast scale” that will involve Sen. Harry Reid having his “balls ripped off,” joined Alan Colmes on Wednesday to defend his now-infamous comments.
“It’s funny, I’ve been warning about the possibility of civil war caused by government bad conduct for the past 20 years, but it wasn’t until I started mentioning the collectivist senators who were putting their own testicles at risk that people started paying attention,” Vanderboegh told Colmes. “I think I must have accidentally put my finger on where you fellows worship.”
He added that the “balls ripped off” expression was just a rhetorical flourish, and that he could just as easily have said “put a bullet in your head”: “I’m saying that if you push ordinary people enough, they will react. And whether they rip your testicles off or put a bullet in your head is sort of immaterial, assuming that you initiate the violence.”
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/mi...
He may have "three per center" patches for sale. ;-)
Vanderboegh originally planned to publish - either in e-book form or via Amazon. Don't know why he never followed through. Some of the chapters have been changed - and some might even be hard to find on line. But it's worth the effort.
That would be my preference, but it has less chance due to political realities of the day. I am looking for something that with enough pressure from the voters and short of a total collapse of the economy has a chance of passing.
Respectfully,
O.A.
Personally, I think we're too far down the road to recover without going through a collapse.
There are two basic problems. The first is that the average voter is a moron. They go to the voting booth (or mail in their ballot) secure in the knowledge that they have done their duty by voting for the putative "leader" of their tribe. They have no more understanding of the issues, or the people involved, than does your dog. This was well-illustrated in the case of the infamous Palm Beach butterfly ballot. The Demoncraps made the usual rounds of the spinster Jewish retirement homes, rounded up the senile old biddies and hauled them off the to polls with instructions to "Vote for #2" - and they did. To understand the problem, see http://www.asktog.com/columns/042Butterf...
There are several ways to look at this. The author of the web page I cite calls it poor design - and it is. But is it so poor that a thinking person would likely get it wrong? Or is it only people who don't know WTF they're doing in the first place?
Second, and related to the fact that the average voter is a dumbass, is the fact that a very large portion of the electorate is focussed purely on their own short-term interests. The entire body of people who voted for BHO likely fits into that category. For them, it's not about what's best for the Country. For them, it's about what's best for them right now, this instant. These are the idiots who take out a gazillion dollars in student loans to fund their campus partying. The same folks who bought houses that cost 100x their annual income, and were stunned when they wound up underwater and out of a home. They're also the majority of female voters who, despite the fact that they have bankrupted the country, continue to vote for every conceivable welfare program and support the Obama agenda. They're the feckless, helpless, useless, hopeless detritus of society. And they vote.
To turn the situation around (short of rebound after we hit bottom) would require that 1) People be smarter about what they're doing, and, 2) Be willing to defer gratification.
I've previously proposed that repealing the 19th Amendment might resolve the crisis. I no longer believe that sufficient. The idea of voting in a democratic republic presupposes some level of awareness and integrity in the voter. Unfortunately, I see none.
Given that the average American voter has the impulse control of a two-year-old (and less intelligence), expect them to continue to vote for themselves "bread and circuses" long after there is anything left with which to pay.
But how about this: Continue the current system, but tell everyone they get a 100% refund on every dollar withheld in federal taxes IF they pass the "budget slash" legislation. Instead of a piddling $500 rebate - how about $10,000? Or $20,000? This would at least get the workers up off their asses. Of course, the welfare queens would continue to vote against it.
I don't rule out the "fair" tax as a stepping stone to no tax. But I have two issues with it.
First, with blanket coverage and embedded taxing, it becomes too easy to "forget". This is the same problem we have with withholding. When you have to write a check for the full amount of taxes at the end of the year, it's PAINFUL. That pain is useful in keeping taxes low.
Second, having all the taxing power rest in a single number (20%? 30%) makes incremental increases too easy. Who would fight a 0.5% increase? Too, there's no motivation to slash the size of government. That's why the "fair" tax talks about 22% tax. It's geared to maintaining the corrupt system we already have. A TRULY "fair" tax would be on the order of 2%. Remember, the last time we overthrew the government, it was over a 3% tax!
There's a third consideration. Under the present system, it's possible to make a living in the underground economy. Screw the IRS. Screw the government. Go Galt. How do you do that with a "fair" tax?
I'm more inclined to think that the problem is too much spending, not insufficient taxation.
So long as the government isn't holding up its end of the contract (is behaving unconstitutionally), I don't believe it's entitled to ANY tax money. So when the IRS targets certain groups, Oblowme launches into undeclared wars, the NSA spies on Americans - the answer is - stop paying taxes. Go Galt.
Your paycheck was direct-deposited on Wednesday? Withdraw it on Wednesday. Contrary to popular belief, the IRS doesn't have a mechanism for "timing" your account.
The main reason is that the people pulling the strings have already demonstrated that they don't care if the economy collapses. They just want to loot it while it's still functioning and get away clean just before it crashes. So, if you think of 3% as moving TEOTWAWKI 3% closer… it doesn't really matter. Suppose that the economic wheels would grind to a halt in 1 year. Would it matter if it ground to a halt 10 days sooner?
The other factor is that the Fed just keeps creating money out of thin air. Would they do it 3% faster?
Now if that 3% were taking potshots at the .01% that's screwing everything up...
We already know that the level of welfare mandated by the Party of Women is completely unsustainable. The debt's at $17T+ with an average of an additional $4T in spending mandated (on average) each year for the next 50 years. Obama's done a fine job of pissing off the Russians. When (not "if", when) they get together with the Chinese one EOTWAWKI scenario would go like this:
1) The Chinese exchange their US debt for gold (they dump the dollar).
2) Russia tells Europe it will no longer accept dollars or Euros for energy. Gold, Russian Rubles or Chinese Yuan only.
3) Syria and Iran agree to the dumping of the petrodollar and the acceptance of gold, Yuan or Rubles for oil.
The dollar dump will send interest rates flying and the dollar will crash. When all the nations of the world see the dollar diving and Russia, China and a fair chunk of the Middle-East jettisoning dollars and accepting gold/Yuan/Rubles, they'll dump their "reserve" dollars - obliterating the dollar as an international currency.
The price of everything in the US will go through the roof because basically, we don't make anything here anymore.
The 40% of Americans who rely upon government subsidies to get through the week will continue to receive those subsidies which will have all the buying power of used toilet paper.
It is in the time just prior to, and during, and after the collapse of the Federal "Sugar Daddy" that freedom-minded people must hammer home the message, "You CAN NOT rely on government. Government is evil. It may be necessary, but it's evil. We must ensure government is as small as it can possibly be."
I can't imagine that there will be much in the way of eagerness to pay taxes of any kind at that point. A barter economy may replace a lot of the current dollar-based economy.
Hopefully a lot of the people who have been voting for the welfare state and the warfare state will simply die. I don't imagine they'll be prepared. The average city only has enough food for about two weeks, and the average household can go for about four days without more food - so starving a lot of the welfare scum may only take a couple months. The Feds have done drills to isolate cities. Some speculate this is what they have in mind. Seal off a dozen bridges and you can starve most of NYC in a month. But that's probably not even necessary. With no gas, who would be moving goods into population centers anyway? It's not as if one could make a profit. Remember, most people will try to pay with (worthless) dollars. At any rate, I know I won't be feeding them.
Whether this would result in a return to America, or the rise of a totalitarian state is an open question. The only thing that favors the former is 300 million firearms in private hands. Whether the death spasms of the current illegitimate government will spawn nuclear war with China and Russia is a wild card.
It's not going to be pretty.
costly. Think of buying something on credit. Let's keep communicating.
Lott doesn't go into depth on motivations - but there is some indication that women somehow figure that having Uncle Sugar as a backup sugar daddy is the way to go. In simple terms, women are more risk averse than men (I'd surmise because they are not as well-equipped to handle risk). Consequently, they want a "backup plan". That "backup plan" is government programs that step in when the marriage fails, the husband dies, or the woman just wants things her way and wants someone else to pay for it. At first glance, this appears to be a rational strategy. But on further inspection, women have created a disaster that will punish us all.
Ironically, women will probably suffer most of all for their profligate voting patterns. The past 3 decades have seen women sliding steadily towards the "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" camp. They appear to reason, "If all my needs are met by the government, then for what do I need a man?" Of course, this pattern of rejection of the traditional role of males as defenders/providers is not lost on men - who are rapidly UNlearning those roles. Rather than finding the woman of their dreams, getting married, settling down, having kids and working themselves into heart attacks, men (most notably among the younger generations) are turning to porn and video games for entertainment, and generally regard women as little more than unnecessary toys. There is little inclination to "improve onesself" for the benefit of a family one will never have, nor any reason to try to please a woman who will chuck you out the door (with the aid of the state) at the first sign of a disagreement. Kids are just liabilities. They're something women have... and men pay for.
The evolving meme for men is that rather than get married, one might as well find a woman one hates and just give her half your stuff. It's no accident that women are now the majority at universities and are a growing portion of the work force. According to the author of "Men on Strike", the men are simply opting out of a system that is stacked against them. This is a second disaster for women, though they seem not to recognize it. If they thought raising kids, working a job, keeping a home was tough with a second paycheck and another adult in the picture, just wait until their money doesn't buy anything, their Sugar Daddy is broke and no men step up to protect them (as society goes to hell).
How bad will it get for women? It's conceivable that every "gain" they've made in the past 100 years will be reversed... with interest. As you've correctly pointed out, it's "pay now, or pay later". Paying later comes with a hefty penalty - and I believe women will wind up paying it. Women have worked hard to escape the image of "the fairer sex". They've pushed and clawed to be perceived the same as men. To the extent they've succeeded, men will simply regard them as weaker men. When it comes down to "survival of the fittest" - women will lose across the board.
One caveat in all this is that female voting patterns seem to be higly dependent on marital status. Securely married women tend to be more liberty minded - that is, they are generally opposed to the uber-state. But they are the minority of the majority. Most women (a 20% gender gap in the last election) are happy to vote for more government, more programs, higher taxes, and trade liberty for (the illusion of) safety. Of course, Franklin tells us what happens to people like that.
Now go read Lott's paper. Maybe you'll get a clue.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?a...
(Have not read it yet.)
But that's not what happened. In none of the 48 states or the Federal government did debt begin to grow until women got the vote. If women had gotten the vote all at one time, one might again argue that some externality was the actual cause.
But women got the vote over a period of 50 years. In each case, when a state accorded women the vote, deficits began to rise. In no state where women were not allowed to vote did deficits rise. What are the odds that the same pattern would repeat itself 49 times, not only in the affirmative (states where women voted ran deficits) but in the negative as well (states that did not allow women to vote did not see soaring debt)?
Here's where I challenge those who disagree to offer their own explanations. Anyone? Can anyone offer an explanation for this pattern that occurred 49 times over a period of 50 years in each state and the Federal government?
Women vote -> deficits.
Women don't vote -> no deficits.
If there's another explanation, it shouldn't be hard to dig it out. So instead of trying to come up with insults, why don't the women here come up with contravening facts? Unless there are none? And if there are none, why don't they simply admit that women are the reason America is running deficits and has accrued nearly $18 trillion in debt and approximately $211 trillion in unfunded mandates over the next 50 years?
Women typically receive welfare at twice the rate of men. Female Demoncraps outnumber female Republicraps 5 to 3. In case you weren't aware of it, welfare is a perennial Demoncrap priority - even welfare for criminal aliens. It is the party of women who push for welfare and welfare is destroying America.
Here's another source of FACTS to stiff the pot: http://www.people-press.org/2012/03/29/t...
"For more than a decade, women have been more likely than men to favor an active role for government. And recent surveys show that higher percentages of women than men say that government should do more for the poor, children and the elderly.
In the October 2011 survey, nearly half of the public (48%) favored a smaller government that provides fewer services, while 41% preferred a bigger government with more services. While 45% of women preferred a bigger government with more services, fewer men agreed (36%). That was in line with the gender differences on this issue dating back to at least 2000."
Like big, intrusive, expensive government? Thank a woman.
The irony is, only in western countries have MEN made it safe enough for WOMEN to speak out. And women are using that speech (and the corresponding vote) to tear down the very infrastructure that makes it safe for them to speak in the first place. When they succeed in being viewed as "weak men", stronger men will dominate them in ways they never dreamed possible.
Talk about chopping your own legs out from under yourself!!
The generation of women who might have had a chance at independent survival was my grandmother's generation. She knew survival skills.
Today's women are completely lost if the tire on their car goes flat or the battery in their iPhone dies.
Years back, when I was working at a gas station while in college, I recall a woman coming into the station - and I did a routine check under the hood. What oil that could be found was thick and black. I asked when was the last time she changed the oil. "What do you mean, 'change the oil'?"
I wonder how many women today would even know how to check the pressure in their tires - or even know that the pressurized air goes on the INSIDE? (Doesn't work as well when you spray the air on the outside.)
Big thumbs up
And unlike most, she is folding human nature and motivations into the scenario.
Emotion has trumped reason in our society and when reality intrudes to "readjust" things it will be very ugly indeed.
khaling makes it a point to thumb down everything I write. Matters not whether I'm right or wrong. She's particularly sensitive to the fact that much of the economic turmoil facing America today is the result of female voting patterns… yet she offers no alternative explanation. That is, of course, part of the problem - the tendency among women to adopt unreasoning, emotional reaction to facts that are not to their liking.
If it wasn't for your blatant misogyny, you'd have the respect and admiration of the women on here. Hell, you make it tough on me(and I know, we've had our rows) because it makes me schitzoid... you have a brilliant mind, then you go and stuff some "barefoot, pregnant, and subservient" remark in there.
You remind me a little of my ex-... tho he wasn't quite as blatant as you are, sometimes... which is why he ended up my ex.
Anyway, that's likely what generates the thumbs down. Generalizing most women as bimbi, and disparaging those who show they aren't. It's not for your other views, that's for damned sure.
Repealing the right for a woman to vote is a non-starter. I think that ‘brilliant mind’ is stuck and can’t reason another solution that values women along side men, so we are stuck as well, suffering the rants every now and then.
Women are the gender of consensus. They are constantly seeking and giving "approval" to each other. The herd mentality runs from the mundane (going to the bathroom in droves) to the spectacularly bad (voting for Obozo and the social welfare agenda). For women, thinking is part "hive mind" activity, and that hive mind cannot understand someone - me for example - who does not give a rat's ass whether you approve. I've read articles that suggest that this is an evolutionary difference between men and women. Women are more collaborative, social, and needful of approval and mutual support. Men are more likely to be loners, independent, self-sufficient and not requiring everyone to agree with them. Think of the activities that men and women engaged in during the first 98,000 years of homo sapiens.
I'm not trying to persuade you, convince you, wheedle, beg or plead for you to see my viewpoint. If you turn your back on the facts, then you're a moron and not worth my time. If you engage on the facts, even to the point of disagreeing and presenting facts of your own - then you've earned the right to have an opinion. Else what you think does not matter.
It's pretty common for women to term this "misogyny" because the lack of approval is scary to them, and they don't understand it - but it's something else - and perhaps much worse to most women: Indifference. I… don't… care… what… you… think… about… me. If you're too stupid to see truth when it's laid out in front of you - that's your problem, not mine.
Regards the 19th Amendment - it's the gateway legislation that allowed women to undermine and destroy everything that men had built in America. You may not think that's a bad thing - but I can think of few precedents with a more disastrous result. We survived WWI, WWII, the Korean War, Vietnam, the cold war, the nuclear arms race, desegregation, Lincoln's War of Northern Aggression, the great depression - only to be destroyed by the women's vote.
Misogyny implies hatred of women. But hatred isn't rational because women can't help themselves. One might as well "hate" your dog for crapping on the carpet. Until they're trained differently, they're just dumb animals who don't know any better. It's the same with women - except you can't hit women over the nose with a rolled up newspaper. (At least, not through the internet.) So it's harder to train them because they get all in a huff over perceived slights and their heads just explode.
I agree that (unfortunately) repeal of the 19th Amendment is a non-starter - for now. If you read elsewhere on this page I HAVE suggested another possibility - that being denying the vote to anyone who accepts government aid. Of course, this will largely affect women who are dipping into the welfare pots that they've voted to create. Some bimbo will probably think THAT'S misogynistic too.
All together now: I - DON'T - CARE !!!
Is there any evidence that bambib is wrong?
Denying the vote to those drawing welfare payments would eliminate about 1.6 million female voters and about 1.23 hispanics and blacks - all of which are disproportionately represented in the Party of Women (Demoncraps). And that's just TANF. Add in food stamps (SNAP), and you bag another 47 million people who think someone else should pay for them to live.
Another 2.3 million women receive WIC, a program which, by its very name, excludes men.
Women use SNAP (food stamps) at twice the rate of men. There are 47 million SNAP recipients. That's 31 million female votes that need to go "bye bye".
Total them all up and you get upwards of 31 million females who would not be voting.
Which would be a big improvement.
A similar improvement would be the roughly 15 million men who could no longer vote to steal money from working people for their own benefit.
In 2012, the popular vote split between Obozo and the Romulan was less than 5 million votes. Take out the votes of 31 million female and 15 million male welfare recipients (even at a participation rate of just 20%) and Obozo loses.
Give it a fucking break.
Modern surveys consistently show that women today ape those inherent characteristics by looking for partners who are socially dominant and have the respect of those around them.
...
Women’s needs were much more pressing. They were unable to survive on their own and depended on the males around them to protect them. A woman isolated with a child would have died because she didn’t have the resources to find food.
...
Women may have equal earning power but in most cases they still seek high earning husbands they can depend on. IT’S SO INSTINCTIVE THEY DON’T EVEN REALISE IT." [caps mine]
Source: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/vie...
To which I would add that the "man" with the most "brute force" is Uncle Sugar - and the women are lining up to jump in bed with him… hence all the female-approved welfare programs.
I point out that women vote for socialism, and steal from others. I provide actual facts and figures. You produce no facts, no figures - and descend into emotional name-calling. I don't even have to make the case that women are too mentally unstable to be allowed to vote - you do it for me!
This is what it means to try to reason with a woman. If she doesn't like the facts, she screams and cries and calls you names.
Well done! And thanks for helping me prove my point.
Well done, dbhalling.
Not permitting anyone who is receiving government assistance to vote would probably work - and be feasible. Regardless of gender, one should not be able to "vote" money out of someone else's pocket into your own. The people who EARN the money should be able to vote where it goes. Those who contribute nothing should have no say.
End welfare in all its forms. The current social welfare system is nothing less than armed robbery by the state with proceeds going to those who vote for it. If someone wishes to be charitable on an individual basis, they should be free to employ their money as they wish. Going down to the local food bank and making a $100 contribution does more good than $500 in taxes. In the former case, almost all the money goes to help people. In the latter case, more than 90% goes to government waste, inefficiency, fraud and abuse. Government is NOT a good way to help people in most circumstances. Of course, charitable organizations have to scramble for dollars in part because tax rates are so high and people have less money they can contribute.
It's only a partial solution. This whole Supreme Court crap about "Corporations are people too" has to be reversed. Corporations should not be able to buy themselves influence to receive government contracts any more than welfare recipients should be able to vote themselves more welfare.
In short - do what you can to eliminate conflict of interest.
Gender isn't the problem here...it's a lack of reasoned philosophy.
"I swear by my life and my love it I will never live my life for the sake of another, nor ask another to live for mine."
And keep your hands off my vote!
In fact, but for the women's vote, the last Republican to lose the White House vote would have been Barry Goldwater.
Which is the greater danger to America? Social welfare programs? Or corporate schmoozing?
News flash - it's social welfare in a landslide!
If women do it a lot more than men, isn't that the problem? Or are you saying the difference is too little make a difference?
Philosophy is a higher brain function. The need of women for a "safety net" is much more basic. It's why the women hanging out around the fire back at the cave while their mates were out hunting bonded so closely with each other. Each hunt was a lottery. If their mate didn't come back, a woman without any mean of support would perish. More importantly in this context, their children would perish, which would mean that the tendency towards socialist behavior was reinforced by weeding out the alternative. This explains the greater emphasis on social bonds among women - and the scheming for a "safety net", even before there was such a thing as government.
Women are more risk averse. Men are more daring. There are literally MILLIONS of example of this. Women are compelled to try to use government to avoid risk. Men are more inclined to accept a challenge. I'd even go so far as to say that the female inclination to favor socialism is GENETIC.
http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/361SEX.html
Princess or not, I believe the need for a "safety net" is ubiquitous in females and relatively scarce among males.
Incidentally, the reference to higher brain function was an allusion to the relative strength of various drives. Think in terms of Maslow's hierarchy… which are mostly physical needs. Once one delves into the realm of mental function, the primary/basic needs are dealt with first - then the higher mental aspects. For those who think women live in the rarefied air of "philosophy", I submit that the greater attention is paid to from whence their next meal is coming long before they become "philosophical". Women are more likely to worry about who is going to take care of them than they are to philosophize about whether forcing other people to pay for their lives is moral.
Suppose for a moment this is true. Say 80% of women exhibit this phenomenon. I suspect survey data show it's much less, but we're assuming for this discussion it's some number >>50%. Wouldn't it be better to judge the individual than their group. Even if it's 80%, that means millions of women don't fall into this behavior and you're needlessly lumping them in and potentially alienating them. Your problem is the policy they advocate, right? Why not focus on the people (maybe me, a 39 y/o man) who actually advocate the policies you don't like? Why the extra step of working out which groups are correlated to the policy ideas?
Show me a successful campaign of any kind that dealt with over 100 million people and was accomplished one person at a time. The closest you can probably get is some religion - and yet, for example, do you think christianity would exist today without its (mass communication) device - the book?
I don't think it will make a difference in the short term. Women have set us too securely on the road to disaster. But perhaps when Americans finally dig themselves out of the rubble, they'll remember: "Women did this to us." It's a little like the Nazis leading Germany to "greatness", only to be bombed into submission. Today, Nazis are looked upon with scorn - as women will be if it becomes widely understood that they created the collapse.
That's when a repeal of the 19th Amendment becomes a possibility.
"...that women are too mentally unstable to be allowed to vote...."
"Women are more likely to worry about who is going to take care of them than they are to philosophize about whether forcing other people to pay for their lives is moral."
"I'd even go so far as to say that the female inclination to favor socialism is GENETIC."
"Misogyny implies hatred of women. But hatred isn't rational because women can't help themselves. One might as well "hate" your dog for crapping on the carpet. Until they're trained differently, they're just dumb animals who don't know any better. It's the same with women - except you can't hit women over the nose with a rolled up newspaper. (At least, not through the internet.) So it's harder to train them because they get all in a huff over perceived slights and their heads just explode."
It's ironic that you make reference to the Nazis...they had the same ideas regarding other groups of people, too. Any other salient points you raise don't seem to make it above the sound of boots marching in lockstep.
So people committed to individualism must take a step back to take two steps forward? We must play group politics to achieve an agenda that ends group politics?
Having trouble reading?
It's sort of like women in the military. If we made them meet the same standards as the men, there wouldn't BE any women in the military. (Okay, okay. Maybe 90% less. Some could meet standards. But most currently on active duty could not.)
But it would save literally a minimum of $500 Billion in tax compliance costs every year, and that's just with private companies.
You could be right.
The $500 billion is just the tip of the iceberg as far as economic benefits when you consider the likelihood of repatriating so much money, as well as the influx of foreign investments in what would be the best place to invest and manufacture since the corporate taxation would disappear.
Respectfully,
O.A.
I say let's do it - and the sooner the better!
What I would be more concerned with is what to do with all those out-of-work IRS agents! They're the useless ones... :)
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/07/158935-t...
Indeed. My CPA has confirmed this. He hates the beginning of the year rush and overwhelming work load. He would prefer to fill his time year round with his usual work. When I think of the savings in my own business and also time spent personally bookkeeping to comply with the IRS, I am certain I could be making more money instead of trying to figure the best tax strategy.
Respectfully,
O.A.
If we have to take their flotsam, they can take our detritus.
We can give all of them shovels, and tell them to dig a hole, and put the dirt over here. Then when they're done, they need to take the dirt and fill someone else's hole with dirt.
It's a GENIUS plan to reduce unemployment!
1. Every citizen will get a rebate at the beginning of each month up to the poverty line so that the poor will be paying no imbedded sales tax. A family of four would get around $525 each month. The rich would get it as it is a Fair Tax that treats everyone the same. More children, bigger check.
2.It shuts down the IRS, appeals to everyone.
3. Retail prices would remain the same. How? You decrease the wholesale price of all items that are now imbedded with Federal tax dollars by 22%. You then sell that coke for a dollar like you did yesterday and pay the government 23% out of the retail price. Prices don't change. If a retail tries to keep that 22% he will go out of business fast via competition.
4. Here's a biggie. The Fair Tax asked the 400 largest corporations outside of the US how the Fair Tax would impact their business decisions. 240 said that they would build their next plant in the US. The remaining 160 said that they would move their corporate headquarters here. Now that would be a stimulus provided with no stealing.
5. The Fair Tax is revenue neutral for the treasury department. As a matter of fact a study was done and it showed that in 15 out of the last 16 quarters more revenue was collected.
By the way, on each receipt that you get from the retailer it tells how much you are paying the bloated federal government in taxes. It is the hope that this will wake up the people just how much they are being taxed and lower that 23% to a much lower level. It is easy to see why politicians and lobbyists are scared to death of the bill. The Fair Tax has been lied about from all democrats in congress and most journalists. We just have to get the message to Joe Six Pack and whoever runs will walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.
Thank you for the added commentary. That is the way to sell it! :) For those still with questions, the site/link I provided has answers.
Respectfully,
O.A.
How is that fair? You pop out rug rats and someone else gets to subsidize them?
Quite true, but at least those fees and tolls are visible and people will object if they get to onerous. I am happier with user fees so long as they are not on top of embedded costs from income taxes and the income taxes themselves.
Respectfully,
O.A.
Would also keep the pressure on the rate, since everyone would see and be affected by it equally.
Essentially we would all be paid in cash! :)
Respectfully,
O.A.
Sooo right! Who needs it? Who's on first? :)
Respectfully,
O.A.
If one is on second, the reaction may be stronger, reasoning [?] that what they did the first time didn't work, so they have to do it, you will forgive the expression, longer and harder.
The most insidious part was the withholding that obfuscated the tax burden from the common man. Most can tell you with a silly grin on their face, what their return was, but not what they actually paid...
Respectfully,
O.A.
...all part of their insidious, but ingenious plan.
Respectfully,
O.A.
Car: $25,000
Tax: $5500
Total $30,500
Instead, the receipt will simply read,
Car: $30,500.
Until they jack the tax… at which point it will be:
Car: $38,000
See my reply to BambiB below.... Correction above.
Respectfully,
O.A.
YES! But, how do we get that passed? :)
Respectfully,
O.A.
http://02f8c87.netsolhost.com/WordPress/...
Indeed. See my exchange with AJAshinoff above. Ref. "This would be in keeping with apportionment as was originally intended."
Regards,
O.A.
"Fair" anything is too relative an adjective for me to be comfortable with it.
NEIN! NEIN! NEIN!
That means that beer and Cheetohs are taxed at the same rate as milk and baby formula. That tobacco and radial tires are taxed at the same rate.
Otherwise the feds can and will continue to use the tax code to coerce behavior.
Way back when, you could claim sales tax paid as a deduction - keeping track of that was a real nightmare because you had to be able to prove it. The Neat Co.has made that easier, but still... Neat makes a little bitty scanner with software that reads what's scanned, like a receipt, and records it. You have to assign it a category, but it's really....neat.
In reality, the Federal Government, operating within its Constitutional limitations, would cost more like $300 to $500 billion. About 90% of everything the Feral Govenrment does is unconstitutional.
Or at least certainly not what the Founders had in mind, I agree. The Establishment Clause, the Commerce Clause, the Superiority Clause - all have been perverted in one way or another to usurp power.
Wickard is a decision everyone should read. It will open your eyes to what a fraud is the Federal Government, including the Supreme Court. You'll read it and shake your head and clench your eyelids and ask yourself, "Did they REALLY just say that?" And then you'll read it again and sigh and say to yourself, "These people were fucking insane. No wonder everything is screwed up."
Add in the military misuse in undeclared wars, and I think you're easily at 90%.
Excellent. This would be in keeping with apportionment as was originally intended.
I like it!
Regards,
O.A.
In many ways, I want the tax system to be as onerous as possible so that people are as desperate about it as possible, and have incentive to change it.
Making slight changes, for the better, will just lull people into a "I can do this, it's not so bad" frame of mind. That's not where they should be - and I don't think it helps our cause for them to be comfortable.
Though not a perfect system, I believe having the tax presented and itemized on every receipt will make them uncomfortable and aware of their tax burden. People go out of their way to shop for the best price on goods and services. I suspect they will do the same with their tax liabilities. The inherent transparency will serve to inhibit increases and may provide pressure for decreases. People paying in this fashion will be as acutely aware as I and everyone else who pays quarterly rather than having employer deductions is. In this fashion I see it as step towards a system more resembling that of our founding. At least you would have control of your money, purchases and tax contributions. I want everyone as uncomfortable and aware as I am, but I do not want the government leaning on me for payment or keeping records of every citizen. I have seen too many businesses and associates personally bankrupted because of penalties and interest on top of the burdensome taxes. Some didn't even legitimately owe what the IRS said they did, but you can't fight them. They have more time and money. They can break you with attorney fees alone.
Regards,
O.A.
Under the current system, the mob dictates policy. Women are the biggest mob - so their policies take top precedence. You want self-rule? You have to first change the system… or become invisible to it. Ayn Rand's thesis is that if you can't do the former, do the latter.
"You have to first change the system… or become invisible to it. Ayn Rand's thesis is that if you can't do the former, do the latter."
I think Rand was warning of a bad thing (collapse, people going into hiding, etc) we must avoid by being vigilant. She was not IMHO arguing that we must become invisible, have a collapse, etc in order to change the system.
So with women continuing to vote for ever-larger social welfare programs (they re-elected Obama knowing it would lead to implementation of Obamacare), what is YOUR solution? Being vigilant means you can see it happening. But what's the difference between not knowing what's happening and just watching it happen?
Instead of dividing the country into groups and then denying some of those groups equal rights, I say devolve power and funding to local gov'ts, maybe the county level. The urban/rural divide is as stronger than the man/woman divide. The urban/rural option leaves people open the option to move to the type of gov't they like. It doesn't create a conflict within families. It doesn't encourage seeing people as protected/unprotected classes. It's not calculated to make half the population (women) not get their way in politics, which might make men not get their way in other areas.
Okay… so if we were to do away with the Federal government, women would not vote in Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, South Carolina or Virginia, right? Each of those states voted AGAINST the 19th Amendment, and applying the idea of local control, women would not have the vote in those states.
Just to make sure we're on the same page.
And there'd be no welfare state imposed by the Feral Government, so if a state, like say, Kalifornia wanted to let women vote, and they all voted for welfare and it bankrupted the state, then Kalforinians would suffer - but not Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, South Carolina and Virginia.
There'd have to be some way to keep the crap from rolling across borders, though, wouldn't there? I mean, Kalfornia has gone from paradise to cesspool, and a lot of the people who MADE it a cesspool are bubbling over into Nevada, Oregon and Idaho. Should those states be able to tell Kalifornians, "You made your cesspool - now sleep in it"?
What do you think?
I do believe in letting those local gov'ts create their own cesspools if they choose. We'd let the market, not you or me, decide the outcome. Maybe in your scenario dual-income families working in technology and creative industries would leave AL, GA, etc for states like CA. Maybe CA would prosper. Maybe not. It's not for us to decide.
But let's not leave Kalifornia just yet. Suppose Kalifornians (the Country's most populous state) passed legislation that completely gutted the government - or, for the sake of a starker hypothetical, turned every square meter of Kalifornia land radioactively toxic for the next 200,000 years. Should those same people be able to move to a new neighborhood - yours, for instance, where they would now outnumber you, and vote for the same ecological disaster in their new home? How would you feel about them spraying your town with plutonium?
And that's the point about cesspools and migration. Kalifornia is a slow-motion disaster. It got that way primarily through socialist voting patterns. Now the state is crumbling and the rats are leaving the ship. They're going places like Idaho (which had a population of about 1 million) and they're taking their socialist pipe dreams with them. Now Idaho is pushing 2 million, and the increase is largely due to the influx of "Californicators" (a term that has been in use in Idaho for more than 30 years - used to read it on the Fearless Ferris signs).
So what's your solution? Just let the invaders come in and vote your home into a slag heap?
Perhaps a more realistic scenario is the influx of criminal aliens. What if they crossed the border and all came to your neighborhood and, following the Obozo agenda, they all got to vote, and the first thing they agreed on was that Spanish was the new official language in your town… and it just got worse from there. Vote all you want - you're outnumbered. What do you do then? Run away?
"women are too mentally unstable" - was not an argument I made. It's an argument Suzanne made - by way of demonstration.
Women survived (and more importantly, their progeny survived) by constantly seeking out sources of protection and food. What hundreds of millennia of programming has created is not undone in a few hundred years. Their foundational instinct is to seek out the "safety net" - which has come to mean government programs. And yes, it's genetic.
You got the "misogyny" part right. I don't hate women. I just regard them as hugely misguided, unaware and resistant to learning.
Thanks for the note on the Nazis. Yes, the feminists marching in lockstep DO make a noise that is difficult to overcome - but I try.
The out of context anecdotes and statistical massaging used by BambiB to foment loathing of half the human race, is the same kind of rationale used by the most notorious groups in history to enslave, 'train', or 'cleanse' those that don't measure up their 'standards', or those that are blamed for the destruction of 'their' ideals. Just like any "big lie", this message comes half dressed in comments found agreeable to the intended audience; but its true nature is exposed when it ignores the nature of the human mind and man's rights, then tries to isolate its target group based on an irrelevant common denominator. This "lie" paves the way for any brute to 'correct the problem' and bring about utopia when everyone is in their Proper place doing only the functions they are 'genetically' capable of doing.
I will not live in that kind of place.
Rhetoric alone is meaningless. Facts. Facts. FACTS!
Start with debunking John Lott's paper on the effect of women's suffrage on government.
I will say in advance that I don't think you'll follow up for one of the following reasons;
1) You're too lazy to do any actual research.
2) You'll read the paper, realize it's irrefutable, and will not want to admit you're wrong, or worse, that I am right!
3) Lacking the integrity to admit when you're wrong, you will change the subject or post no reply at all.
In short, if you're lazy, cowardly, or deceitful, I don't expect a response to Lott's paper.
Of course, if you're NOT too lazy and you CAN refute the paper on a rational basis, this is a prime opportunity to make me look bad. Please! DON'T PASS IT UP! Take your best shot! Here's your chance!! Everyone will thumb you up to record numbers for engaging and defeating me! Come on! Here's the target on my chest. Take your best shot!
Tick… tick… tick…
What? Crickets again?
I could care less about your 'traps', but your philosophical clothes are wearing thin.
(Well, no, actually, I didn't KNOW it until you posted more rhetoric and refused to engage on a factual level… but I strongly suspected it. Thanks for making my case - but I really wish you hadn't been so lazy, dishonest and lacking in integrity. Sort of disappointing, really.)
Men certainly don't hold a monopoly on virtue, but if you eliminate the female vote, you solve the problem. If you eliminate the male vote, the problem just gets worse.
So which conclusion do you prefer?
1) Women are driven by natural selection to steal from others?
2) Women know they are stealing from others, but don't care?
3) Women are too ignorant/stupid to realize they're stealing from others?
Note that #1 does not preclude 2 or 3. A woman can be driven by biology to steal and be too stupid to know it. Or driven by biology to steal and not care.
As for the female/male ratio in this: It keeps coming up 2:1 female for use of stolen resources, except where it's higher (as in the WIC program). Note too that statistics point to disproprotionate use of stolen resources by minorities. Together, the women and minorities (blacks and hispanics) make up the primary constituentcy of the Democrat party - The Party of Women (and minorities) which incessantly pushes for MORE socialism and more theft from the productive class.
I'm certainly open to another explanation.
Does anyone have one?
If critics of Rand were to send someone disrupt this message board by spreading a veiled anti-liberty message in a divisive way, it would look like BambiB.
It's going to take a crash and a reset of the role of women in society. Men thought they would be rational. Men were wrong. Men will know better next time - after the societal collapse and reset.
We just keep going back to visit Roark and antagonizing him as Dominique did?
"It's going to take a crash and a reset of the role of women in society. Men thought they would be rational. Men were wrong. Men will know better next time - after the societal collapse and reset."
This sounds like the tagline for made-for-TV sci-fi movie, with promotional material suggesting more lurid content than is actually in the film.
A man who acted against the female penchant for welfare would lose in the next election and be replaced by someone who was all for women stealing more from the productive class.
And don't you DARE for a moment pretend that any attempt to cut welfare would not be cast as a "war against women". Even you cannot be that dishonest/stupid.
Despite your strong disagreements with khalling, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from comments like the following. "Even you cannot be that dishonest/stupid." This is a personal attack and the implication is that she is stupid, or dishonest, but not " that dishonest/stupid." This is unfair and unnecessary roughness. You are plainly smart enough to see how this line could be antagonistic to our female contributors. Please keep it civil and impersonal.
Respectfully,
O.A.
Frankly, I was holding back.
I do not see her as the problem. She is clearly not one of the women who believe in the welfare state. Broad brushes do a disservice to those women who do not walk in lockstep. Ayn Rand did not believe in the welfare state and neither do the regular female contributors to this site, or else they would not be here. Taking away the vote from them will never happen. Any attempt to do so at this time would only make men's lives worse. While I will not dispute your statistics, I would point out that while the proportions may be reversed there are plenty of men who also ask others to live for their sake. Whether nature or nurture it is irrelevant since suffrage is not going to be revoked. Any blame placing and name calling will only reduce the positive reception of your arguments. Your points regarding education and removing the welfare state need to be heard, the uninformed need to learn and change, but your adversarial approach will only impede your cause.
Now, I hope you are not calling into question my honesty or intelligence. I have thus far been generally sympathetic to your basic thesis, but question the efficacy of your approach and appeal.
Respectfully,
O.A.
As for my "cause" - nothing I say or do here is likely to affect my life. The die is cast. The disaster is coming. We will be destroyed by women. It is inevitable. When it happens, you may even remember that I told you it was coming.
In the aftermath, perhaps long after I'm dead, someone may be around to pick up the pieces. I hope they start out with, "This was done by women". As they reform the Country, perhaps they will say, "We must not allow this to happen again. Women must not be allowed to destroy us again." At that juncture, repeal of women's voting has a better than even chance - especially since so many women will be surviving solely through the good offices of men (as has been the case throughout the entire history of the species). Our descendants may come to look upon this brief period in history in a few countries around the world and think of it as a time of estrogen madness! When men allowed women a voice, and what the women said was, "Give me everything today - and to hell with tomorrow." It might even become known as the "Era of Insanity - When Women Voted and Everyone Suffered their Stupidity".
But that's for the future to decide.
Food for thought: Then, if you believe as you say "the die is cast" and nothing you say or do will affect your life, then what is to be gained by alienating the women who would not vote for the things you object to? Consider how you may make what remains of your life as pleasant as possible. Whether you are a believer or not there is wisdom in the Serenity Prayer. Life is too short to spend making enemies and offending those generally sympathetic to your goals and may in fact be our best hope. Save your ire for those who would use their vote to enslave you regardless of gender. We will all be better served. Sometimes the old cliche that you can catch more bees with honey than vinegar is the best approach. I believe that this is a better way to appeal to those inclined to making decisions in the way you object to. What have you to lose?
Please start a new thread to continue this line if you wish to vent further, though I believe the women you have the most problem with are not on this site. This site has the most independent and anti welfare state people regardless of sex as you are likely to encounter.
O.A.
Your post should be on the general guidelines for this site.
Attack the ideas not the person. She's not even attacking the people but a group they belong to. We could just as easily say affluent urban areas are the problem or people with dark skin. Enemies of individualism don't want us talking about ideas or even each other. It's "men", "women", "urbanites", "suburbanites", "the educated", "African Americans", "soccer moms". Maybe that makes sense to an election strategist, but real people.
Good points. Although if I recall correctly BambiB is not a she, but a he. I could be wrong...
O.A.
What is to be gained? That even those women who think they are anti-socialism come to know that they lie to themselves when they say it is not women who have created the problem. Women don't listen to men unless the men are telling them what they'd like to hear. They instead cluster with other women and seek mutual approval. So if khalling isn't telling her "sisters" that they're destroying America - what good is she? "Oh no, I'd never vote for socialism - but neither will I call out the bitches who do. In fact, I will defend them - and deny that they are the problem."
Your call for peace at any price is reminiscent of Neville Chamberlain's miscalculation. Today's women are the enemy, not only of men, but of themselves and their children and their children's children! Their short-sightedness and narrow-mindedness leads them to act on a primal level to secure to themselves all the guarantees of safety and provisions that they can - despite the falsity of the promises upon which they depend and the fact that in doing so, they doom the future.
You think this is a topic not worth discussing? Or that the self-righteous women on this board have actually done anything to convince women that they are, in fact, the problem? Of course not. They do not even admit the truth to themselves. Khalling and Suzanne and Mimi and the rest will never come right out and say, "Women ARE the problem. As a group, women are destroying America. The Obama agenda, state control of everything and socialism, is the agenda women voted for. It will bankrupt this Country and force our children, and their children, to live in misery."
Instead the women here say things like, "**I** don't think that way." Or "it's the men running everything (without admitting that the men who are screwing America's future are elected by women.) They cannot, will not, accept the truth. They are delusional, and their delusions are every bit as dangerous as the delusions of women (and some men) who think free things come from the government.
Why point out their dishonesty? Because when it all falls down, no one should have any pang of conscience in turning his back on a woman in need. No one should ever worry that she might starve, or be raped, or die, or that her children might starve or die. When the collapse comes, it should be the women who bear the brunt, and they should know why. And for those who survive, they should always doubt their ability to think, to make a decision, for fear that once again they will destroy everything through their stupidity. And when society is rebuilt, it should be everyone, every man and every woman who understands that women destroyed what men had built. Men built. Men create. Women sap and destroy. But they can only do it because men permit their abuse. In a future society, warned of the danger of letting women speak, men may simply say, "No. Not again."
And to drive the kids soccer practice.
Clearly, the first part of the answer is contextual - it spells out what women are doing and why. The second part merely acknowledges that women do other things too - lest the scope be too narrow.
"You think this is a topic not worth discussing?..."
I have said no such thing. You are the one who said "the die was cast" ...that nothing you say or do will have any affect... Yet you go on...I do not object to discussing this issue, but I believe your efforts would serve you better if you took a different approach and went to a venue where the worst offenders are.
You cannot substantiate your assertion that these women have done nothing to convince other women... You have no evidence of the influence or lack thereof these women have had on others.
Neville Chamberlain...really? ... please... I will not dignify that with a retort. By all means keep going about your blame game all you wish, in the manner you wish, for all the good it will do you... No skin off my behind. But, please do it on another thread. This is my thread. This subject is off topic and I tire of the tedium and useless kvetching.
I do not mind a little meandering, presentation of your statistics and thesis in a factual, impersonal, unemotional way, but you have made it personal, derogatory and offensive to friends of mine on this board. Despite the merits of your thesis your manner is off-putting to those you seem to want to reach the most. Insults will gain few converts.
Now, I will ask you respectfully, one more time to please move this discussion from my thread if you wish to continue. I have shown you respect... that I have some respect for your position and statistics. If I did not I would have down-voted and/or hidden some of your comments. Will you respond in kind? Please, do not make me regret my actions thus far, or cause me to take actions that might censor the worthy points you have made. They deserve an airing and should stand on their own without the added derision.
O.A.
Can you ever get anything right?
Fair enough. We disagree. The worst offenders are probably on this board - women who, claiming that they are opposed to socialism nonetheless refuse to acknowledge that it is women who are driving the socialist agenda. At least the other women are honest about their avarice and indifference to who they hurt. What they want is whatever they can get right now - and it might as well be tattooed on their foreheads. But the women here - they PRETEND to support freedom and independence, all the while defending the destroyers of America… women!
>> You cannot substantiate your assertion that these women have done nothing to convince other women... You have no evidence of the influence or lack thereof these women have had on others.
Actually, I have multiple instances of them DEFENDING women as a group. They don't say, "Yes, women are screwing America. Not me personally, because I know better." No. What they say is, that women aren't to blame - when the overwhelming evidence is that women ARE to blame for the destruction of America.
Let us listen to all the women on this site who will now tell us that they have told other women that women are destroying America.
Listening….
Listening…
Listening…
I can hear crickets.
Is there not a single woman on this board, in the face of such overwhelming evidence who will stand up and say, "You're right! Women are destroying America!"??
No?
Then I call you all hypocrites and liars… and if the truth hurts, it's only the very least that you deserve.
Regards the rest… Putting "friends" above truth should be beneath you… but perhaps it's not. Fair tax? The current tax? How about NO TAX!? That's what we could have, were it not for the voting patterns of women.
If you love sucking up to females more than truth, if you would rather cater to the vagaries of women than stand up for liberty, if you are a coward who cannot stand the piercing light of hard facts… censor away!
I'm done.
Have a good night.
O.A.
Name calling? I let people define themselves. I think I've given the reasons for any "name-calling" I've done. If the labels don't fit, feel free to refute them.
Intimidation? Really? Are you that much of a coward that you feel INTIMIDATED reading characters on a computer screen? Note, I ask. ARE you that much of a coward? It is for you to answer. Or not.
Making allowance for the individual? WTF does that mean? Do you expect me fudge the facts to suit some moron's whimsey?
Others will most likely judge on the basis of whether they "like" a given post. That's the female way. If they "like" it, it must be right. If they DON'T "like" it, it must be wrong.
Women, in general, LIKE welfare. Women LIKE the policies that are destroying America. Hell, women LIKE the fact that hundreds of thousands of criminal aliens flood our southern border.
I live in a different world - where whether I LIKE a fact or not has no value in determining the validity of the fact. Women may not LIKE the fact that 1+1=2, but that doesn't alter the fact. Women may not LIKE the fact that their voting patterns have doomed America - but it's no less a fact for their disapproval.
Frankly, I have more respect for a single person who engages on a FACTUAL level (even if they disagree with me) than I do for the entire universe of people whose version of reason is "what they feel" even if they DO agree with me.
Wrap your brain around that… and try again.
Is she right? Is everyone afraid just talk facts with her because none of the facts are on your side?
It's not a disagreement about facts but principles. I don't disagree that denying groups the right to will change the outcome of elections. I disagree with identity politics (dividing people into groups) and I disagree with denying people the right to vote to get the outcome I want.
How do you deal with the fact that the majority votes to take away your stuff for their own use? If I got it, that's what bambib seems to be saying. It does not seem to be about groups so much as it is about the biggest group just stealing from everyone else for their own use. What do you do about that?
I have presented lots of information but the best the critics have to offer is name-calling and disapproval. Apparently you're not supposed to mention some facts. Unfortunately, we'll all pay the price.
I said that the last Republican that would have lost was Goldwater. In case you didn't know, FDR was before Goldwater. In addition, if you look at the history of the debt, you'll see that it wasn't until the 1960-70s that the debt began to go into "unsustainable" mode. That's about the time femmes came out with "I am woman, hear me roar". Pretty much everything that came from women on politics since then has been "Ask not what I can do for my Country, what the hell is government going to do for ME!!??"
The cause and effect (women vote, debt soars, government grows) is pretty well documented. I assume you're just shooting from the hip, haven't bothered to check the cites I've provided and are arguing from emotion and ignorance. That's not an exclusively female approach - but it does seem to be a prevalent one.