asshole, 30 yrs from now $7 a gal gas WILL BE CHEAP

"Beam Me Up Scotty" > wrote

>
> It's about the "Ruling Class" and they want to care for their slaves
> equally and stop the slaves from invading the dark meeting rooms and
> vacation places of the mega rich. It is Socialism that is being forced
> on America to accomplish the restrictive lifestyle that the Rulers need
> to feel secure in their positions.
>
>

So the Republicans are Socialist? Are they not the "ruling class" : big money,
big business, given a blank check by John Roberst & company to crush free
speech, to crush the working class?

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 12:11:01 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
> wrote in
misc.transport.road:

>On 7/24/2010 10:19 PM, bugo wrote:
>> "Beam Me Up Scotty" >
>> wrote in message
>>> Democrat-Socialist one term wonders.
>>
>> Your "socialist" is getting so old. As I said, go live in North Korea
>> for a year and you'll see how un-socialist our current leaders are.
>>
>> I wish our leaders were actually socialist. It would be funny watching
>> the right-wing nutjobs heads really spin.
>
>So we are Socialist, just not quite as much as North Korea.... I
>totally agree. And I hope to reverse the process that's taking us
>closer to North Korean Socialism.
>
>
>Socialism leads to totalitarian regimes, it "is" individual RIGHTS that
>help keep the power out of the governments hands. Once Government
>steals or consumes our individual rights then it becomes a small step to
>steal the few rights we have left and WE THE PEOPLE end up with a
>totalitarian government or Dictator.

How are we better off under our current corporatist regime?

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 08:59:13 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
> wrote:


>SS and Medicare are for people who won't save for their retirement and
>then when broke an old want other taxpayers to pay for them.

That will be fewer if we get prosperity back.

>SS and Medicare are enforced savings programs to force people to set
>aside for their retirement.

They're not savings programs. They're taxes, and get spend
immediately by the gov't.

>The Income Tax is not the FICA tax.

Yes it is. Repeal the 13th amendment, and the FICA is not
collectable, and would be unconstitutional.

>Cutting the income tax won't affect SS and Medicare.

No, it won't. The consumption tax would just pay it. But yes it
will, as the prosperity brought about by the consumption tax would be
able to finance these things.

Want an optimistic scenario? We institute the consumption tax, the
economy takes off, we employ absolutely everyone possible, and then
throw open the gates to immigration. If the entire population of
Mexico wants to immigrate, fine, they can. We can then train them up
to work in our factories, put THEM to work, and they can pay into the
federal revenue that supports SS and Medicare, too, only newly born
citizens and immigrants are NOT to be eligible for it. They have to
save enough themselves, OR keep working until they die. Simple. The
more immigrants, the more taxpayers. As long as we keep them
prosperous, which should be doable with a consumption tax, they can be
a benefit to society.

>Good luck on getting rid of SS/Medicare. A majority of Republicans and
>Tea Party folks are opposed to that.

I'll never see it, I think. Maybe, over time, we can make everyone so
prosperous that they don't need it, or almost everyone.

>How do you intend to make it happen?

Kill the income tax, make everyone prosperous, then they won't need
it.

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 11:54:11 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
> wrote in
misc.transport.road:

>On 7/24/2010 10:48 PM, Clark F Morris wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 09:05:23 -0500, Rich Piehl
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>> much snipped
>>>
>>> This from the person who didn't know that it was the Republicans that
>>> brought about civil rights laws in this country - not the democrats.
>>
>> The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were by the Republicans but the
>> 1964 Civil Right package was by the Democrats or are you referring to
>> some other civil rights laws?
>>
>
>It was Republican support that won the day.

Of course the Northeast Republicans are long gone from the GOP because
they were no longer welcome. The booing of Nelson Rockefeller at the Cow
Palace was the beginning of the right-wing purification of the GOP.

>The Left was in a state of chaos as they had the likes of Senator Byrd
>filibustering the legislation.....

He was a Democrat but he was never a leftist. He was always a moderate
conservative.

>The racist in the Democrat party that said he changed, like that woman
>that Obama fire in the USDA said she was a RACIST but has a hallelujah
>moment too.

She is not a racist.

>Democrats like those kind of people, the people that were racists and
>now say they aren't. When the fact is that;

I like people who are not racists. If they used to be, I'm glad they
grew up.

> "Liberalism is based on race and is inherently racist because in
>Liberalism, race is the one thing from which all else is derived.
>- Beam Me Up Scotty - 2009"
>

Total nonsense.

On Jul 25, 12:03*pm, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-
> wrote:
> On 7/24/2010 10:30 PM, bugo wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Beam Me Up Scotty" >
> > wrote in ...
>
> >>> In article >,
> >>> Free Lunch > wrote:
>
> >>>> Health care has always been rationed. The question is how it is
> >>>> rationed. Right now, in this country, it is rationed by insurance
> >>>> companies and affordability.
>
> >> Don't we ration food and water and clothes? Should the government hand
> >> out those little *Mao suits* to each and every American rather than
> >> allowing us to buy expensive designer clothes while the poor have to
> >> wear K-mart clothes?
>
> > There's a huge ****ing difference between wearing fancy clothes and
> > dying because you can't afford insurance or because the criminal
>
> Kids kill other kids for their expensive sneakers. People steal
> expensive clothes, and steal identities to buy expensive clothes all the
> time and end up in jail with their life ruined and shortened.... *ruined
> thanks to the criminal culture they end up in after stealing the clothes.
>
> > insurance companies refuse to pay for your treatment. *Have some
> > perspective.
>
> They are the same in the end(MY clothes/MY medical care), they are both
> Socialism when government interferes and neither one is a power given to
> the Federal Government by the constitution.

would you say the same with regard to MY public school and MY
interstate road?

On Jul 25, 12:11*pm, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-
> wrote:
> On 7/24/2010 10:19 PM, bugo wrote:
>
> > "Beam Me Up Scotty" >
> > wrote in message
> >> Democrat-Socialist one term wonders.
>
> > Your "socialist" is getting so old. *As I said, go live in North Korea
> > for a year and you'll see how un-socialist our current leaders are.
>
> > I wish our leaders were actually socialist. *It would be funny watching
> > the right-wing nutjobs heads really spin.
>
> So we are Socialist, just not quite as much as North Korea.... *I
> totally agree. *And I hope to reverse the process that's taking us
> closer to North Korean Socialism.
>
> Socialism leads to totalitarian regimes, it "is" individual RIGHTS that
> help keep the power out of the governments hands. *Once Government
> steals or consumes our individual rights then it becomes a small step to
> steal the few rights we have left and WE THE PEOPLE end up with a
> totalitarian government or Dictator.

if you could figure what to do about old farts who are broke and
destitute because they refused to put aside money for their retirement
and health care then we'd be in business.

that's the problem. Even the right wing don't watch to watch granny
die on the ER steps because they turned her away for lack of funds.

On Jul 25, 12:23*pm, Dave Head > wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 08:59:13 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
>
> > wrote:
> >SS and Medicare are for people who won't save for their retirement and
> >then when broke an old want other taxpayers to pay for them.
>
> That will be fewer if we get prosperity back.
>
> >SS and Medicare are enforced savings programs to force people to set
> >aside for their retirement.
>
> They're not savings programs. *They're taxes, and get spend
> immediately by the gov't.
>
> >The Income Tax is not the FICA tax.
>
> Yes it is. *Repeal the 13th amendment, and the FICA is not
> collectable, and would be unconstitutional.
>
> >Cutting the income tax won't affect SS and Medicare.
>
> No, it won't. *The consumption tax would just pay it. *But yes it
> will, as the prosperity brought about by the consumption tax would be
> able to finance these things.
>
> Want an optimistic scenario? *We institute the consumption tax, the
> economy takes off, we employ absolutely everyone possible, and then
> throw open the gates to immigration. If the entire population of
> Mexico wants to immigrate, fine, they can. *We can then train them up
> to work in our factories, put THEM to work, and they can pay into the
> federal revenue that supports SS and Medicare, too, only newly born
> citizens and immigrants are NOT to be eligible for it. *They have to
> save enough themselves, OR keep working until they die. *Simple. *The
> more immigrants, the more taxpayers. *As long as we keep them
> prosperous, which should be doable with a consumption tax, they can be
> a benefit to society.
>
> >Good luck on getting rid of SS/Medicare. A majority of Republicans and
> >Tea Party folks are opposed to that.
>
> I'll never see it, I think. *Maybe, over time, we can make everyone so
> prosperous that they don't need it, or almost everyone.
>
> >How do you intend to make it happen?
>
> Kill the income tax, make everyone prosperous, then they won't need
> it.

are you in favor of a FAIR Tax or a VAT?

On 25 Jul 2010 16:08:10 GMT, Michael Coburn >
wrote:

>On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 11:09:12 -0400, Dave Head wrote:
>> Yes we have. Look at a bar graph of the gov't spending that is doing
>> it. 1 of them is the DoD, a function defined in the Constitution. The
>> other 2 are social give-away programs, Social Security and Medicare.
>> Obamacare will absoultely kill this country if we don't get it repealed,
>> and we will live as the 3rd world people do. Its the spending...
>
>You are a moron. The proper address to this problem is to absolutely
>separate the Social Security System, the Medicare system, and the other
>government activity so that honesty can rein supreme. It would mean an
>increase in Medicare taxes and income taxes and that is about it.

Yeah, that's what would kill the economy. Its doing it already.
Raising those taxes would simply accelerate the proces.

>Social
>Security is currently drawing a minor amount of its funding from its
>trust fund and will remain solvent far into the future if the economy
>recovers and expands as it should.

There is going to be NO economic recovery without nuking the income
tax. Hell, they're PREDICTING high unemployment all the way thru
2013, and they're likely wrong about implying that there won't be in
2014.

>Medicare has a problem because of the
>Republican hand out to the pharmaceutical companies all dressed up in a
>"compassion" suit. They provided _NO_ way to support the Senior Drug
>benefit program.

The whole thing needs repealed, but that wouldn't work anytime soon.

>> Those are income taxes, and would go away with the repeal of the 13th
>> Amendment. Not only that, they are HIGHLY REGRESSIVE income taxes, that
>> take 7.65% out of the pay of even someone making $5K/yr, it doesn't
>> matter how little you make, that 7.65% happens. It also take another
>> 7.65% out of what the employer is supposed to cough up, which
>> incentivizes him to find workers overseas.
>
>The segregation of wage taxes to support Social Security was done
>specifically to thwart the Republican lying pigs. Social Security takes
>_NOTHING_ from capital and owes _NOTHING_ to capital. And that has kept
>the system safe from the lying pigs since its inception. The problem we
>are having with Social Security is the result of off shoring all the
>jobs.

Yep, and that is happening because of the income taxes.

>There are not enough payroll taxes because wages and jobs have not
>kept pace with economic growth and all the money is being diverted into
>profits.

That's the way industry works. Make it cheap to do business here and
jobs will come back from overseas. Then we can afford more, and
people will need to use public assistance less.

>Medicare is suffering the same fate, but Medicare SHOULD be funded by
>taxes on wages AND capital. The Medicare tax on profits (starting in
>1013) is going to be used to fund private insurance subsidies for the
>working poor.

We should eliminate the working poor, and make them the working
well-to-do. That can be done by killing the income tax, that has
killed much of our business, and taken their jobs overseas.

>>>You guys that say "cut taxes" to head off disaster would cut what kind
>>>of taxes. FICA taxes?
>>
>> Yep. All the F'n income taxes have to go. Every last one of 'em -
>> personal, corporate, Social Security, Medicare, capital gains, gift,
>> self employment, alternative mimimum, estate, etc. - I always seem to
>> forget a category, but if its a tax on income of any sort, it has to go.
>> And they all need to be cut to zero. That's 0.0%.
>
>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lack of response noted.

>>>Cutting the Income Tax which is what primary funds non-Medicare and
>>>non-SS would do what?
>>
>> Nothing. We would get the same amount of money from a consumption tax.
>
>The redistribution of economic rent is a proper and just mechanism. That
>can be done with an asset tax or a highly progressive income tax. We
>have chosen the income tax method.

Yeah. How's that working out for ya? Lessee, 17% underemployment,
jobs going overseas still, low paying jobs abound, good ones are now
beginning to require a masters or a PHD to hold, etc. etc.

>>>Do you think cutting the Dept of Education or the EPA is going to fix
>>>the structural deficit that is due to SS and Medicare?
>>
>> The Dept. of Education could really be dissolved. It is simply Federal
>> gov't control of something that is local by nature.
>
>BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT TTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!

Big gov't guy, aren't you? Gotta control... control.... control...

>> The SS needs to be phased out. Cutting it suddenly isn't possible
>> without adversely affecting lots of people. You could means test, but
>> that would adversely affect anyone that is not rich, and the rich are
>> not numerous enough to make much of a dent.
>>
>> I'd create a continuously increasing retirement age if I were doing it,
>> and force people to either use something like a 401K instrument and save
>> enough to retire as soon as they want to, or not do that and retire at
>> whatever increasing age that fits the year they were born. Eventually,
>> people born today, for instance, would never get SS or Medicare, and
>> would have to save for that. Only Medicade, that simply keeps people
>> from dying, but you have to be bankrupt to use it, would be left. We
>> could afford that.
>
>Moron alert!!!

Idiot.

>>>The only way to fix Medicare and SS is to either raise FICA taxes or cut
>>>benefits, extend retirement age, etc or BOTH.
>>
>> You got it.
>
>Nope... The way to fix the system is to NOT offshore all the jobs/wages

So kill the income taxes, and get them back.

>and to NOT keep allocating so much to profits and instead allocate a
>reasonable amount of productivity increases to wages. Problem solved.

If business can quit sending their profits to Washington, then they
can give raises.

>>>Cutting income taxes and cutting other Govt will not touch the
>>>structural deficit.
>>
>> Yes it will.
>>
>> If you cut the income taxes to zero, the economy will boom. 10 - 15
>> trillion American dollars that are sequestered overseas, hiding from the
>> US income taxes, will come back, and be put to work building factories
>> to make even more money for the people that own this money.
>
>BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT TTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>Next contestant please...

>The investing will take place in countries where wages are already at
>subsistence levels.

Nope. They'll take place right here, where there is a zero tax
manufacturing environment. What do they care what the wages are,
when, IN THIS COUNTRY, we can automate the crap out of the factory,
and where you used to need maybe 6000 workers per shift to build X
product, you only need, say, 2000 for all 3 shifts? You can pay 'em
well, and make a profit too. Build 400 factories in each of the 50
states employing 2000 people each and the entire population below the
poverty line, 40,000,000 people, would have good jobs.

>It may be quite humanitarian, but it doesn't help
>the American middle class.

Killing the income taxes would.

>And we have _NO_ desire to make the rich even richer.

I want EVERYONE to be richer (esp. me...)

>> Inadvertently,they're going to have to hire people to work in the
>> factories. Those people the general American public, will experience a
>> rise in income, and will buy things, more things like big screen TVs,
>> bigger screen TVs, American cars which would be cheper due to the income
>> taxes on their manufacture going away, and they would then be paying
>> MORE overall taxes to the treasury than were being collected before.
>> That is how the deficit dies, with prosperity. No other way is going to
>> work, we have to achieve prosperity.
>
>This is the same "supply side" stupidity that got us into the mess we are
>currently in. It doesn't work. The reality PROVES that it doesn't work,
>yet we still have a religious order that will not accept reality.

So there's nothing we can do to put people to work and restore
prosperity, eh? Well, yes there is, and that is to give them good
jobs. That's best done with _factory_ jobs, that pay well. Attend an
economics class, you'll find that there are only 3 sources of wealth:
Agriculture, mining, and manufacturing. Manufacturing has fled the
high income taxes of the USA and that has also crippled some of the
mining industry. No wonder we're in such a fix.

>
>>>European "socialism" is having the same issues - the costs of health
>>>care have gone up faster than what they collect in taxes to pay for it.
>>
>> Yep, and they continue to ration it more stringently. That system is
>> headed for a crash.
>
>(snore)

Its a very, very long process.

>> No, the other way is to grow the economy, make the general public more
>> wealthy, and they will cut the deficit with their spending that the
>> consumption taxes will send to Washington.
>
>YESSSSS!!! Absolutely true. All we have to do is increase ORDINARY
>income taxes on the rich while offering lower tax rates to capital gains
>and the economy will boom just as it did in the 1990's.

Yeah. Lower the capital gains tax to zero. And the rest of the
income taxes. The boom of the 90's would be dwarfed by what happens
next.

>> Cutting the SS and Medicare
>> is a goal, but we can make things better MUCH more quickly by bringing
>> back prosperity, and the way to do that is to zero all the income taxes.
>
>BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT TTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!
>There has never been a poor effect on the economy of this country from
>taxing the rich. Not ever. As a matter of historical fact, cutting
>taxes on the rich simply increases debt.

Yeah, yeah, yeah... real tired of the "I hate the rich", "The rich are
evil," etc etc. I want the rich to have more money. I want me to
have more money. I want the poor to have more money. The way to do
that is to grow the economy, build the factories, etc. The only way
to do that is to make building stuff cheaper here than elsewhere. THe
way to do that is to kill the income taxes.

>>>It's not socialism that's the issue.
>>
>> Yes it is. It is bankrupting the country.
>
>The Republican mantra: "Bankrupting the country". This refrain will be
>seen in EVERY rightard post. The Bush tax cuts will expire and that will
>do more to help the economy than any other action that can be taken. The
>1990's are a historical record of that absolute fact.

The economy will collapse if the Bush tax cuts are not extended. But
you're probably thick enough to have to live it in order to believe
it. Then you'll probably figure out a way to blame it on some rich
guy, like when the REST of the industries fold, or move overseas, from
the inability to make a profit due to the taxes.

>
>> The boneheaded efforts to
>> pay for it by taxing prosperity, which is what the income tax is, has
>> resulted in less prosperity. Get rid of the income tax. It is this
>> country's 2nd biggest mistake, right behind slavery.
>
>Incomes in excess of $150k are primarily "economic rent".

Dunno what you're talking about - its just mumbo-jumbo for, "I hate
the rich", although people making 150K are not rich.

>And taxation
>of economic rent does not alter the direct economic actions of those who
>are touched by the tax.

BS. My doctors are going to have a really rough time if they tax them
any more. Their rates will go up, there'll be less people that can
afford their services, and the insurance will cover less. Hell, I
have $7K in medical bills myself 2 years ago, $6K last year, and $10K
this year, probably. 1st one was unavoidable, some others were
elective (to get them done before the Democrats destroy health care
and I can't get those things fixed at all), and the rest was other
stuff that went wrong, like bursitis, cataracts, etc. Geeezzz... in a
couple years, with guys like you raising the tax on it, those figures
would probably double for me. That's why I got a lotta that stuff
done now.

>There may be some isolated situations in which
>a contributor to the community might forgo the contribution toward the
>end of the year, but that is a very rare occurrence.

?

>>>Both Europe and US have the same
>>>basic problem and that is the costs of health care - in part because of
>>>an aging demographic is rising... and our current taxing to pay for it
>>>is not enough.
>>
>> Well, it is not enough, and will get even worse in that respect if we
>> don't get rid of the income taxes.
>
>Pig crap.
>
>>>It has little to do with "socialism" which is just another idiotic
>>>canard used by those who have a sound-bite mentality
>>
>> It has everything to do with socialism - that is over 2/3rds of our big
>> expenses. Get rid of SS and Medicare, and you only have the DoD, which
>> could be funded easily.
>
>The problem is the word "we" which means the high income tax payers.
>These pigs REFUSE to acknowledge that Social Security is off budget and
>is currently solvent and will remain so far into the future.

"As the "baby boomers" move out of the work force and into retirement,
however, it is anticipated that expenses will come to exceed Social
Security tax revenues in 2010 and 2011, and then briefly regaining
some solvency in 2012 until plunging into permanent cash-flow negative
operations from 2016 onward (at current levels of taxation)." -
Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_...(United_States)

>We need to
>INCREASE the medicare tax across the board and to allow people under age
>65 to join the system paying full fare for the Medicare insurance.

Its already going broke, that'll just make it worse.

What are you going to do about manufacturers that avoid this tax by
shutting their US factories and building new ones in Mexico, Canada,
and overseas in Asia? I was traveling thru Indianapolis last year,
when I picked up the local news on WIBC that said that the Whirlpool
plant in Evansville would close in December 2010, the reason being
that the operation was moving to Mexico. The more you make it
expensive for factories here, the more they will leave. If they don't
leave, they'll just go out of business, 'cuz everybody will be buying
the refrigerator from Mexico built by Chinese companies. Either way,
there will be no taxes collected for SS here, there will be 1000's
more, per factoriy, out of work here.

>These
>actions are not related but both may be necessary. The Medicare tax will
>need to be increased to fund medical care for the elderly
>(demographics).

Spend, spend, spend...

>But the inclusion of more people in the Medicare groups
>will provide a monopsony function to control costs.

But it sounds like an asymptotic function OF costs...

>When 75% of the
>people are all members of Medicare, then the providers can't shift costs
>to the private market and more people will leave the private market and
>join Medicare.

Medicare is the insurance that refuses the most medical coverage, bar
none, several times what private insurance refuses. You want to sign
up to that? I don't - I'm spending enough already.

>And _THAT_ is the only way to control the soaring costs
>of medical insurance and medical care.

Naw, keep the lawyers from sucking medicine dry with frivilous
lawsuits. That'll work better.

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 10:16:55 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
> wrote:

>On Jul 25, 12:23*pm, Dave Head > wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 08:59:13 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >SS and Medicare are for people who won't save for their retirement and
>> >then when broke an old want other taxpayers to pay for them.
>>
>> That will be fewer if we get prosperity back.
>>
>> >SS and Medicare are enforced savings programs to force people to set
>> >aside for their retirement.
>>
>> They're not savings programs. *They're taxes, and get spend
>> immediately by the gov't.
>>
>> >The Income Tax is not the FICA tax.
>>
>> Yes it is. *Repeal the 13th amendment, and the FICA is not
>> collectable, and would be unconstitutional.
>>
>> >Cutting the income tax won't affect SS and Medicare.
>>
>> No, it won't. *The consumption tax would just pay it. *But yes it
>> will, as the prosperity brought about by the consumption tax would be
>> able to finance these things.
>>
>> Want an optimistic scenario? *We institute the consumption tax, the
>> economy takes off, we employ absolutely everyone possible, and then
>> throw open the gates to immigration. If the entire population of
>> Mexico wants to immigrate, fine, they can. *We can then train them up
>> to work in our factories, put THEM to work, and they can pay into the
>> federal revenue that supports SS and Medicare, too, only newly born
>> citizens and immigrants are NOT to be eligible for it. *They have to
>> save enough themselves, OR keep working until they die. *Simple. *The
>> more immigrants, the more taxpayers. *As long as we keep them
>> prosperous, which should be doable with a consumption tax, they can be
>> a benefit to society.
>>
>> >Good luck on getting rid of SS/Medicare. A majority of Republicans and
>> >Tea Party folks are opposed to that.
>>
>> I'll never see it, I think. *Maybe, over time, we can make everyone so
>> prosperous that they don't need it, or almost everyone.
>>
>> >How do you intend to make it happen?
>>
>> Kill the income tax, make everyone prosperous, then they won't need
>> it.
>
>are you in favor of a FAIR Tax or a VAT?

Fair Tax. The VAT tax taxes our industries at every turn. The Fair
Tax taxes foreign industries too, and doesn't tax goods bought by our
industries for use in producing things. The VAT tax is 100%
regressive as it is applied to everything poor people buy, while the
Fair Tax effectively pays the tax on all poor people's purchases. The
VaT tax will happen in addition to the income tax, which will help
nothing at all, while the Fair Tax requires the dissolution of the
IRS, and eventual repeal of the 13th Amendment.

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 10:14:59 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
> wrote:

>On Jul 25, 12:11*pm, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-
> wrote:
>> On 7/24/2010 10:19 PM, bugo wrote:
>>
>> > "Beam Me Up Scotty" >
>> > wrote in message
>> >> Democrat-Socialist one term wonders.
>>
>> > Your "socialist" is getting so old. *As I said, go live in North Korea
>> > for a year and you'll see how un-socialist our current leaders are.
>>
>> > I wish our leaders were actually socialist. *It would be funny watching
>> > the right-wing nutjobs heads really spin.
>>
>> So we are Socialist, just not quite as much as North Korea.... *I
>> totally agree. *And I hope to reverse the process that's taking us
>> closer to North Korean Socialism.
>>
>> Socialism leads to totalitarian regimes, it "is" individual RIGHTS that
>> help keep the power out of the governments hands. *Once Government
>> steals or consumes our individual rights then it becomes a small step to
>> steal the few rights we have left and WE THE PEOPLE end up with a
>> totalitarian government or Dictator.
>
>if you could figure what to do about old farts who are broke and
>destitute because they refused to put aside money for their retirement
>and health care then we'd be in business.

Easy. They continue to work. You can train 'em for SOMETHING. If
prosperity returns, there should be lots of opportunities.

>that's the problem. Even the right wing don't watch to watch granny
>die on the ER steps because they turned her away for lack of funds.

Medicade for the absolutely destitute would still exist. The key is
to keep people from getting absolutely destitute. Promoting
prosperity by repealing the income taxes would do that.