An Orgy of Envy

Envy has been the fuel behind nearly all collectivist (that includes socialism for the non-thinkers out there) movements in a society for as long as there have been societies. It is often shrouded with the term "fairness" to disguise its bitter flavor, but it is there none the less. The concept of "redistribution of wealth" or "spreading the wealth" is directly connected to envy. Those that are unsuccessful feel they are finally getting back at those that are. And why do they feel they need to get back at them? Envy. They hate those that are successful simply for being successful Just look at the term "Capitalist Pig". It is often used as a label on the immeasurably wealthy. It implies that they are evil, or at the very least bad, people simply for being wealthy. The same applies to the term "Robber Barrons" because, apparently, there's no way to become wealthy without stealing.In a genuinely capitalist and free society, these would just be mutterings of the envious peoples with no weight behind it. Unfortunately due to "power peddling" and a lack of foresight by politicians, this muttering has taken on a much larger embodiment and has the power of force behind it. The dumb masses (or is that dumbasses) have been clamoring for politicians to do something about these evil wealthy people and corporations and the politicians have been more than happy to use this envy to fuel their rise in power. With the power to levy taxes, the power peddlers have altered the tax code so that the more successful you are, the more of a percentage is taken from you in taxes. That alone is enough to appease some of the envious out there. A person recently told me "They [the rich] should pay more. They can afford it. Besides, they need to know what it's like to be poor anyway. Those bastards have no idea what I go through." So apparently, taxing someone at a higher percentage is enough to appease that person. For now.....
It gets even worse when "redistribution" is added into the envy stew. Not only should the wealthy pay a higher percentage, but it should then be given to those that are not wealthy. Why? "Because we deserve it. Who are they to have all that money, fuck them! I need money too!" I recently heard. It is this precise sentiment that has fueled collectivism in America. The pandering and appeasing of the masses has created a climate where the government now has the ability to play a misshapen form of Robin Hood. Taking from the wealthy and "redistributing" to the poor. (it should be noted that Mr. Hood stole from the sheriff, who took his money from taxes, rather than free trade...but that is a topic for another day) By using the power of the government, envy now has force behind it.The one right afforded to a (proper) government is the initiation of the use of force. And as such, all decrees, laws, and policies from a government are backed by that force. The pandering of the masses and the appeasing political figures lends itself to an economic system that punishes those that are successful and rewards those that are not. So long as a group, or an individual can be singled out as being "too wealthy" there will be someone "more deserving" to give the money to. And so long as those two groups can be identified, there will be someone to act as the middle man and peddle their power.

With the current state of politics in America, there is no shortage of groups demanding punishment of the wealthy And there appears to be no shortage of power peddlers willing to corrupt The Constitution in order to maintain their position. It can be seen nearly daily with government officials demanding a private business do business a particular way, or by openly saying how the government should take over a private industry in order to "protect" the people. All of this leads to an orgy of envy where anyone can lay claim to anyone else they perceive to be wealthier than they are, and feel entitled to it because everyone else is doing it.
For concrete examples, look no further than the banks. They have been deionized on a daily basis by political figures of all flavors. They are using the fuel of envy to maintain and even grow their positions of power.
This is all being done in the name of making things fair. It will continue to be done until such time as everyone thinks everything is fair. But isn't it odd that no matter how successful a person is, there always seems to be someone more successful And ass a word of advice to the collectivists out there, just as there is always someone more successful, there is always someone less successful, chomping at the bit to get ahold of what you have.
The end result of this is not an egalitarian society where everyone pursues their interests for the betterment of mankind, but rather a feeding frenzy with all peoples being the predator and the prey at the same time. Where no productive effort can be expended for fear of retaliation by someone else. Where "need" becomes a currency, and "ability" becomes burden.

So, everyone, get your toga! Grab some wine! Come to the orgy!
Because in the end, it's all the same.
Everyone gets fucked.

"Dumbass"

YAY!


Apparently I am just short of being a terrorist just because I went to a Tea Party! (weird, that never happened to my Grandmother in her heyday)

This, according to the Department of Homeland Security....Or as I like to call them The Department of Saying-Whatever-I-have-To-Say-To-Keep-My-Cushy-Ass-Government-Job.

“Right wing
extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups,
movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of
particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly anti government,
rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting
government authority entirely,” the report states. “It may include groups and
individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion
or immigration.”

I am sure most of you know that the previous quote is from the DHS report on Right Wing Extremism.


Well ain't that somthin'. Categorizing people into broad groups and labeling the mass for the attributes of a few. I wonder if that has ever happened before. Too bad I'm not up to speed on my Civil Rights Movement Era history. Maybe if I knew more about Germany around 1938 I would have a better idea of this grouping thing. Good thing they are on their toes into dividing the nation into manageable groups there at DHS.


For the record, I would happen to fall into the second group by their broad definition. And from what I gather there is some pretty good company in that group. Nathan Hale being one of my favorites. Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and George Washington to name a few more. If being put into the same group as those fine gentlemen requires a label of "Right Wing Extremist" then I'll take it.

I do dislike a strong Federal Government. So did the afore mentioned men of The Enlightenment. I know this because I actually read "The Federalist Papers" in Jr. High. I suppose instead of actually reading her assignment Janet Napolitano was passing notes to the cute beatnik in her class.

The Founding Fathers disliked a strong federal government also. There's a reason for this. The government is to be controled by the people. I know, that's quite the stretch to make, especially with "WE THE PEOPLE in great big ass bold letters at the very top of the constitution itself (I wonder what font they used). Keeping as much government in local hands as possible keeps the government from getting so large that it can no longer be controlled.

Despite me penchant for humor, I am quite serious on this matter. Let's take a fictional example of a concrete to demonstrate the abstract thought behind this distrust of "Big Government"

Suppose there was a bill being proposed to outlaw... I dunno.... using deodorant.
Suppose that this bill was in the U.S. Senate. Now, picture yourself getting ahold of your Senator. Go head, find their phone number on the website and call up to make an appointment. Now, while you're on hold make sure to book your airline flight or rental car to Washington DC, or if you are extremely lucky you can catch them in their district at their "home office".

Or maybe you would like to stage a peaceful protest to the proposed bill. Get some people that agree that deodorant shouldn't be banned, make some signs, think up some catchy slogans like "Hell no, we wont smell!" You do know you can do that right? It's right here in Amendment 1 of the US Constitution.

So, make sure to get all your friends schedules to line up, get the bus or car pool, spend the cash on gas, food and lodging, and get yourselves all the way to your representatives office and "peaceably assemble".

I don't mean to disparage U.S. Senate (or House) representatives. But quite honestly they cover a large territory and have a brazillion constituents. Even an honest one would have an extremely difficult time of listening to each of the "petitions [to] the Government for a redress of Grievances"

Now, lets say such legislation was brought up in your local area. Imagine that you live in Stinkyton. Also imagine that it was the City Council bringing this "Pro-Stench" legislation. Heck, maybe they might throw a catchy name onto it like "Stankowitz Law".

So, you being Pro Deodorant don't much care for this idea. Imagine yourself calling up your local City Council Reps office and scheduling an appointment. Imagine also, when you get there you find out that Mr. Representative (with a name like that, how could he NOT get elected!) lives just a couple of blocks down the road from you and went to the same grade school you did. So, how much influence do you think you would have? How much easier would it be to meet with your local Council member than your U.S. Senator?

We can go another rout if you would like. Let's say you and your buddies decide that it might help to peaceably assemble (gosh, there's that phrase again) in front of City Hall. Imagine the logistics that would involve. My goodness it might actually happen!

"Hey Bill...wanna protest that deodorant garbage at City Hall Friday afternoon?"
"Sure thing Ted"
"Excellent" (insert guitar noises here)


This also leads to the ability for you to leave an area that has laws that you feel are unjust.
Suppose again that you live in Stinkyton, yet you enjoy using deodorant. The populous of that area rather enjoys the 'au natural' thing leaving you as the odd person. You enjoy your deodorant so much that you are not about to give it up, so you decide to pack up and move to where it is legal to use deodorant. Which just happens to be a few blocks away, NOT an entirely different country.


That is why they wanted a small central government in the founding of The United States of America. The founding fathers intended for the people in government to have a healthy fear of the consequences of their actions in their duties. They also expected the people to have a healthy distrust of the government and question their every decision. This would keep the power in the hands of "We The People" (wow, another phrase I've seen somewhere before).

Need more evidence, click the above link and check out Amendment 10.



But apparently that makes George, Thomas, Nathan and quite a few other people "Right Wing Extremists" per Janet Napolitanos opinion. Yep, I am in quite good company!


But hey, if that is her opinion of me, then I suppose I get to from an opinion of her. I think I shall choose a label that has already been defined. Not to leave her alone, I will also include Keith Oberman, Jeneine Garofalo, and some guy born in Austria who became some sort of half assed leader around 1938.
The label, as coined by Red Foreman, "Dumbass".

Dear Kettle, You're black. Sincerly, Pot.

Yesterday it was announced that there will be changes in the tax code to remove loopholes and catch tax cheats that have been getting away with not paying their share of taxes.

President Obama made this announcement with Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner.

(It should be noted that this announcement was made with a straight face)



The Kettle.....

Current tax laws have many 'loop holes' that allow for ferreting money away so that a person or a corporation can avoid being penalized for being successful. Off shore accounts are a common means by which to do this. Write-offs are another. These loop holes were put in place by the people that have the power to do so. And who is that? Lets take a look at the U.S. Constitution to figure that out. It can be seen here The U.S. Constitution

From Section 8 of Article 1:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and
Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare
of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform
throughout the United States;

If you guessed Congress, give yourself a cigar (while they are still legal). Why would the members of Congress do such things as allow for legal loopholes for people to escape paying their taxes?

Power. By having the ability to open and close loopholes, members of Congress hold their power over the heads of corporations and private citizens. Especially ones that they need finical support from. It gives them some muscle to persuade people into continuing to vote for and support them. I will not even go into bribes (that's "earmarks" to you and I). And I suppose we can strike out "but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States" from that these days.

Rather than having some guts, the pansies in Congress prefer to be passive aggressive about their dealings and instead, broker their power. Were the tax code simplified from assloads of pages to one line, this would become a thing of the past. Something like "All persons subject to the protections provided by the Constitution of The United States shall pay 10% of income in the form of taxes."

Just imagine a world where the members of Congress no longer had the power over an individual person or corporations tax liability. They might actually be productive, and the tax code might actually be fair!



The Pot....

Mr. Geithner.

Apparently he is supposed to be some financial wizard.

Currently, he is serving as the Treasury Secretary. Prior to that posting he was President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. One would think a person of his pedigree would understand taxes and money.

But one would be wrong.

Mr. Geithner failed to pay taxes on his personal income while serving as the President of the Fed in NY. He claimed it was a mistake, careless, and avoidable. That's like saying George Lucas thought that the Death Star really was a moon. If he is the financial wizard that all the politicians say he is, then it is either intentional, or he is incompetent (circle the most correct answer).

I wont even go into the deductions. Rest assured, if I were to use the mindset he did, I think I could find a way to deduct internet porn as a business expense.

He did pay some of the taxes back, once it became public knowledge after his appointment by the President. But he did not have to pay a fine for late payment.

So, Mr. Geithner was there to make an announcement on catching "tax cheats" that use loop holes.
Or so said the Pot to the Kettle.

On the other hand, Mr. Geithner didn't use loopholes, he just didn't pay.

I wonder if I can get a Secretary posting if I quit paying my taxes?