Neal Boortz Commencement Address

[Gimpy]

er, "fatheads" or whatever----you already GOT a "bone"----try and use the one between your EARS and you'll SEE where I've ALREADY answered YOUR crap with about every single piece of factual information you continually FAIL to recognize as the TRUTH!

I haven't seen ONE SINGLE THING in ANY OF YOU GUYS POSTS that have attempted to discredit ANYTHING I've posted about "cheap-labor, neo-ultra-right-wing consevatives". NOT ONE!

Just MORE hate and hate mongering of the democrats with NOTHING to refute the facts as they're stated!

But that's OK, because we've all come to expect this type behavior from the "right", ya know??

[SuperScout]

You remind me of a neighbor that lived next door, long ago. Well actually, you remind me of his dog, a schizophrenic little chihuahua that barked at perceived threats, blowing leaves, and rustling blades of grass. One day, I was minding my own business, working out in my wood shop, when I hear this little bugged-eyed yapper rounding the corner, running right up to my open door, and proceded to make way too much noise. I did what I could to cause him to practically levitate with lilliputian rage, all the while hoping that he might just go into orbit somewhere else, thereby bringing peace and quiet, not to mention sanity, to the neighborhood. The Moral of this story: just because everybody doesn't fall over and swoon in abject approval of all your blather doesn't mean that we haven't read it -it's just probably that we find it unbeliveable, incomprehensible, utter bile and bilge, or so tainted with bias that it doesn't warrant a reply.

Come to think of it, you might just become the inspiration for More Tales of piglet, which some of you might remember from the old site!

[1IDVET]

Besides, Gimpy, I love you liberals!
You guys just make my day.
Where would I get my laughs from otherwise?
It's like I sit around chanting...
Keep up the good work there Gimpy, you give us all hope!

[Gimpy]

Any and all help I can give to "inspire" you is a pleasure!

I was beginning to think that you may not have read some of the "evidence" of republican, reprehensible, unrealistic, perpetually obscene & obnoxious actions and behavior. However, it appears my efforts to further your (and others around here and elsewhere) continuing educational developement have not gone in vain! I'll do my best to see that one of GEE-W's campaign pledges are kept-----which was---"IS our children learning anything?"------cause it sure as hell looks like he ain't gonna keep any of the ones he made to US, huh??

Anywho, I'll CERTAINLY make sure I keep enough "informational truth" coming for you and others to peruse at your convenience.

PS---1IDVET, glad I'm able to keep you laughing as well! At least you're "reading" my stuff----whether or not you think it's funny, maybe it'll "sink in" one day. BTW---I LOVE your little funny cartoon characters-----where'd you get'um?

Respectfully Your'n,

Professor Emeritus Albert E. Gimpinski, BA, MD, PHD, DDS, DDRS, and Purveyor of all that is factual & truthful and certified, lifetime member of the Brotherhood of Republican Bashers International!

[1IDVET]

Right here Gimpy.
Best Smileys
And yes I do read it.
Gotta keep my wits about me!

Oh, and I loved your signature line!
Too funny!

[Gimpy]

I found some good ones at that site. Found a good one for our "cowboy" friend down in Texas, Old Super hissseff = . Got a good one for you too () that should help show your frustration with ME! HAW--HAW!

Thanks for the heads up!

[MORTARDUDE]

more meat for the chihuahua... LOL LOL

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Trickle Down Economics in Reverse
The Lowdown

Dave Corsi
dcorsi@americasvoices.org

"The more government in the economy, the less economy in the government." -- Ronald Reagan


October 11, 2001

One interesting sidebar to the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center is how it proves conclusively that "supply side" economics works. Unfortunately, this is being proven in reverse. The bombing left certain industries tattered and bruised. This has had a ripple effect on other industries leading to a downturn in employment, earnings and growth throughout the economy. The Trade Center Bombings have shown that supply side economics is the only true economic system the world has known.

Liberals and big government proponents have derided supply side economics (i.e., Reaganomics) for years, derisively naming it "trickle down economics" and claiming it helps the rich and injures the poor. September 11th has put the name calling to rest, albeit temporarily. The bombings and its aftermath have left their mark on the economy. The airlines and travel industries, already in dire straights, were decimated as Americans cancelled travel plans and airplane reservations. This led the airlines to institute massive layoffs. And what of the industries that are economically linked to the travel industry? Companies that supply fuel, food and beverages, paper products, mechanical parts, etc., have all had employment reduced. And what of areas where tourism is a major industry? I've just returned from a business trip to Las Vegas where business was off so much that 15,000 casino and hotel employees were laid off. That is 15,000 people who may have a difficult time making mortgage and car payments and putting food on the table. Which will have a negative effect on seemingly unrelated industries such as real estate, car manufacturers, local stores and shops. On a positive note, when I was preparing to return home, the tourists were flocking back, lured by special deals from the airlines and the casinos, so many of the laid off should be returning to work. So "supply side" economics (slow business) in reverse led to layoffs and misery. But this is how the economy works. It does not exist in a vacuum. All parts are interdependent on other segments of the economy.

Businesses large and small are made up of people. The same is true of the economy, it is not an abstract object, it is people. All kinds of people, all races, all religions, both sexes. These are the people that make up America. If the businesses of America don't do well, the people suffer. Nervous patrons shunned Broadway Shows that were very successful up to September 11th -- within two weeks, many closed. Unemployment for New York actors, stagehands, printers, ushers, etc., will rise dramatically. What do you think would happen to all those shops and restaurants in the theater district? Their closings may not be far behind, adding to the carnage.

Supply side economics is not about greed or hoarding wealth. It is about creating businesses and opportunities for everyone, allowing people to pursue their hope, dreams and aspirations. The peoples' success in turn supports the government, making both prosper. But when an oppressive tax code and an over regulating government of bureaucrats stifles growth and prosperity, ultimately both will suffer. Just look at the failed socialist/communist big government nations that could not produce enough food or toilet paper for their people.

For those who think supply side economics is about reducing government revenues, nothing can be further from the truth. During Ronald Reagan's tenure in office, his supply side economic policies led to a doubling of Federal Government revenues. Supply side tax policies led to innovation and a business climate that continued to bring this nation unparallel growth and prosperity. The flip side is an oppressive tax code that leads to people hoarding their wealth to an attempt to avoid paying taxes which leads to business contractions and its by products: unemployment, foreclosures, bankruptcies, declines in health care, soaring increase in crime and chemical dependency.

The nation is now seeing just how supply side economics works. My hope is that once these days fade into the distance, the people don't forget this economic lesson we've all been given. And the next time some self-serving politician begins to knock free enterprise and supply side economics, the people should treat him as the economic ignoramus he is -- an unemployed politician.

[MORTARDUDE]

Libertarians Want Their Own State
As It Is

Doug Patton
dpatton@americasvoices.org


"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."
-- Ronald Reagan (1911--), 40th U.S. President (1981-1989) and U.S. Army Captain in WWII



June 17, 2003


"Who is John Galt?"

Fans of philosopher-novelist Ayn Rand will recall that question as the opening line of her massive tome, "Atlas Shrugged". Over the course of the next 1,100 pages, the reader learns that John Galt is the novel's capitalist hero, a man who methodically has become the catalyst of a successful attempt at recruiting the best and the brightest entrepreneurs of American industry to withdraw from the commerce of their country. The result is a steady decline of the U.S. economy, as America's producers refuse to continue paying for the non-producers.

Rand's vision was a warning that the socialism she had seen in her native Russia was creeping into the expectations Americans had of their own government. And this was in the 1950s!

Fifty years later, the American producer of goods, services and creative ideas labors under a financial and regulatory burden Ayn Rand could only have contemplated in her worst nightmare. And while the miracle of free-market capitalism still remains a strong motive, the insatiable appetite of government at every level to redistribute wealth is rapidly destroying the incentive to create it. (Witness the recent shameless pandering of Democrats and Republicans alike to give "tax credits" to an entire class of Americans who pay no taxes!)

It has been estimated that if all the assets of every individual American were confiscated and redistributed evenly, within a few decades those assets would be right back in the same hands. That sounds about right. Spenders spend. Savers save. Producers produce. Parasites do not.

Enter the Libertarians. It might sound Quixotic, but a real movement is gaining ground among a growing number of people who have become alarmed at the pace with which the United States is racing toward confiscatory taxation for the purpose of redistributing assets.

In a scheme that would make Ayn Rand proud, the Libertarians are plotting to take over a state, revamp the government with policies of minimal taxation, spending and regulation and possibly even threaten to secede from the Union. They think they will need about 20,000 hard-core believers in a small state to accomplish this. I think they just might be on to something.

Former Republican Senator Malcolm Wallop once said that the difference between Democrats and Republicans was that if Democrats introduced a bill to burn down the Capitol, Republicans would offer an amendment to phase it in over three years.

Put another way, in the words of a frustrated conservative House Republican with whom I spoke recently, Democrats seem willing to lock arms and step off the cliff together into the socialist abyss singing "We are the world", while his Republican colleagues seem perfectly content to line up and march off single file.

True Libertarians will tell you they believe that government should defend the shores and deliver the mail ? unless, of course, someone else can deliver the mail more efficiently and cheaper. In other words, pure Libertarians advocate maximum liberty with minimum restrictions in any and all arenas of human activity.

This sounds good, but carried to its logical extreme, it involves decriminalizing virtually every "vice" known to man: gambling, prostitution, the personal use of illicit drugs and abortion on demand performed by anyone anywhere. I have often said that I would become a Libertarian in a heartbeat if it were not for these social issues. However, when it comes to economics, they are right on target.

Fifty years ago, the average family of four in America paid just four dollars in federal taxes out of every $100 earned. State and local taxes were also at a minimum, with many states not even utilizing sales or income taxes.

It was this economic freedom, not the power and authority of government to confiscate our assets and solve our problems, that made us the world's greatest superpower. Libertarian economic philosophy may be our last hope of escaping the tax burden that is threatening the vitality of nations all around the world.

[MORTARDUDE]

Tax Revolts & Liberty
"A is A"

George F. Smith
gsmith@americasvoices.org

"That the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression."
-- The Declaration of Rights, Constitution of the State of Alabama, Article I, Section 35.


April 20, 2002

Congress to citizens: Only two things are certain, death and taxes.

Citizens to Congress: Agreed -- death to the state that imposes high taxes.

As a country, the people have expressed this sentiment only once, when they declared that government had become destructive of their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

After winning independence, our founders tried to translate the doctrine of man's rights into legal form. The Constitution they created included some compromises, one of which gives Congress the power to provide for the "general Welfare of the United States".

The compromise postponed settling an ongoing debate: How exactly does Congress provide for the general welfare? Two lines formed: one behind Jefferson, who wanted government to serve as "a guardian of fair play", the other behind Hamilton, who wanted government to direct our play.

Up until 1860, Jefferson's philosophy largely prevailed. Then the Republican Party got Abraham Lincoln elected president.

Throughout his political career, Lincoln had supported the Hamiltonian philosophy of Henry Clay and the Whigs called the "American System", which included a national bank, internal improvements, and especially protective tariffs. In naming it as he did, Clay wrapped the flag around the much-discredited mercantilism of previous centuries -- the very system of abuses our founders revolted against.

The fact that mercantilism was bad economics made no difference to Lincoln. He was determined to push his plans for expansion of the country, with government playing a significant role and the South footing most of the bill.

The centerpiece of the Republican Party platform in 1860 was a high protective tariff. In some cases it raised the existing tariff rate 250 percent. In his first inaugural, using political jargon, Lincoln said he would wage war against any state that didn't collect all the money imposed by the tariff.1

He was speaking, of course, to the South. Because of their dependency on foreign manufactured goods, Southerners had been paying 87% of all Federal taxes collected, mostly in the form of import duties, even though their population was only half that of the North. When Lincoln's election looked inevitable, the South prepared to defend itself. Once again, Americans were willing to secede in resistance to an abusive authority.

We've heard that Lincoln saved the Union and freed the slaves. What we don't usually hear is that the Union he saved was a repudiation of our founding principle of consensual government. Nor do we hear much about his offer to the South, in his first inaugural, of passing an amendment that would legalize slavery in southern states forever.2 Furthermore, though abolitionist sympathies in the North spread after the publication of Uncle Tom's Cabin in 1852, most Northern newspapers and citizens were in favor of letting the South leave the Union in peace.

Then on March 11, 1861 -- seven days into Lincoln's presidency -- delegates in Montgomery, Alabama adopted a new Confederate Constitution, which "affirmed that the states were 'sovereign and independent' and omitted a general welfare clause. The Confederate government could not impose protective tariffs, grant subsidies, or finance internal improvements."3

Almost overnight, many Northern editorial writers did an about-face. The South was actually supporting free trade. It would open its ports to the world and ruin the uncompetitive Northern manufacturing interests. The New York Times economic editor, who had favored peaceful secession, now demanded that the Federal Government ". . . shut up every Southern port, destroy its commerce, and bring utter ruin on the Confederate states."

Though his top military commander, Winfield Scott, and most of his cabinet advised against it, Lincoln sent an unarmed vessel to provision Fort Sumter, knowing the South would likely fire upon it. One northern newspaper reported that for "three weeks the administration newspapers have been assuring us that Fort Sumter would be abandoned, [but] Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of aggressor."4

Lincoln ordered his troops to arrest anyone critical of his war and to shut down newspapers editorializing against it. He even imprisoned most of the 10 newly-elected delegates in Maryland because he suspected them of harboring secessionist sympathies. "[Secretary of State] Seward famously boasted . . . that he could 'ring a bell' and have a man arrested in Ohio, New York, or any other state."5

We're told that the South suffered under their philosophy of states' rights, that the centrally-organized North proved superior during the war. But as soon as war broke out, the South abandoned its constitutional principles and turned to forced industrialization -- socialism. The Confederate government set up its own arsenals, foundries, powder mills, textile mills and many other operations. When it did deal with private firms, it dictated prices and profits.6

Victory went to the North for several reasons, including the fact that it retained a higher degree of private initiative than the South. The central planners of the Confederacy squandered resources and brought their people to the brink of extinction.

We live today with Lincoln's legacy. We were the only country in the west that needed a war to end slavery. States rights, and their check against an encroaching central power, died at Appomattox. The idea of keeping government completely out of our business all but vanished. With the Constitution brushed aside, economic life has become politics or perish, as most major organizations have set up lobbying headquarters in D.C., diverting still more resources into unproductive activity. Lincoln created an absolute central government that has spread like cancer, with an insatiable appetite for our money.

But we have reason to hope. When it comes to taxes, people are far from apathetic, as we saw in the Tennessee Tea Party of November, 1999.7 Carla Howell's campaign for governor of Massachusetts this year is riding on her pledge to repeal the state's income tax. No one's giving her a chance, even though she rounded up over 75,000 signatures to place the initiative to kill the tax on the November ballot. At some point taxes will reach critical mass for enough people, and calls for secession or repeal might once again begin.

[MORTARDUDE]

Judgment Day in Massachusetts:
Ending the Income Tax
George F. Smith

gsmith@americasvoices.org


August 29, 2002

Events beckon, Massachusetts. Once again in history, opportunity reaches out to you.

This fall you will be asked, "Do you want to end the state personal income tax?" For your life's sake tell them, "Yes!"

In the formative days of our country, the people of Massachusetts stood up for themselves, and the rest of the colonies stood by them. Patriots like John Adams, John Hancock, Joseph Warren, and Paul Revere were men of distinction with much to lose by defying the king. Yet they had the courage to stake a claim on their property and fight for it.

Supporters of the income tax tell us it's the price we pay for civilization. Nothing could be further from the truth. When we condone theft as a civilized act, no matter who the perpetrator is, we open the door to force in our lives. A government that coerces its citizens promotes conflict and decline, not peace and prosperity.

Advocates of Big Government often ask, "But who will take care of the needy?" And the world witnessed the answer in the aftermath of 9-11, when donations for the families of victims inundated the charities. But the difference between giving and being taxed is hardly subtle; it's the difference between an act of love and rape.

It's time for you to tell the big spenders in your state you're mad as hell and you're not going to take it any more.

What Voting "Yes" Means

In September, the Massachusetts Elections Division will mail 4,000,000 guides to registered voters in your commonwealth. Massachusetts law allows up to 150 words pro and con for each question on the ballot. Carla Howell, the 2002 Libertarian Party candidate for governor of Massachusetts, wrote the argument in favor of "Yes" to Question #1:

Your "yes" vote to end the state income tax means that 3,000,000 working people in Massachusetts will each get back $3,000 every year. $3,000 every year to spend or save, give to churches, charities, or favorite causes. For our families, businesses, neighborhoods, and communities.

Your "yes" vote to end the state income tax will create 300,000 to 500,000 new jobs in Massachusetts. Jobs for our out-of-work relatives, friends, and neighbors. Jobs for our graduates.

Massachusetts state government spending has more than doubled in 10 years. $10 billion under Michael Dukakis in 1991 to $23 billion today.

Are public schools delivering double the education? Are our streets twice as well maintained? Is Logan Airport twice as safe as it was 10 years ago?

Your "yes" vote to end the state income tax is a vote to downsize our high tax, wasteful, bloated, ever-growing, greedy government. [Vote "yes"] for small government.1

Government Control and Our Dollar

Once upon a time we had no income tax, either Federal or state. But in 1913 for the Federal Government and 1916 for Massachusetts, income tax amendments were enacted. Also in 1913, politicians passed the Federal Reserve Act, which created a national bank known as the Fed.

Together, these laws perform a sleight of hand. Through the income tax the government takes your money, but the Fed dumps more currency into circulation to try to ease the impact and preclude protests.

Let's see what this trick has done to our dollar.

If we go to a web site called "How Much Is That Worth Today?", we can get a clue to its effect.2 The site is maintained by John J. McCusker, Ewing Halsell Distinguished Professor of American History and Professor of Economics, Trinity University. McCusker lets you compare the purchasing power of the dollar during different periods of our history, based on Consumer Price Index data or estimates.

For instance, in 1901 it only took a nickel to buy what today would cost you a dollar. But it took $1.50 in 1801 to buy what cost a dollar in 1901. With the dollar under political control, then, its value has all but vanished. With the dollar under market control, its value shot up 50%.

Big Government is poison to civilization. As history testifies, it promotes its decline.

Why Tax Profiteers Love the Income Tax

An association of tax profiteers that call themselves the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation (MTF) says that "not a single member of the legislature, House or Senate, Democrat or Republican, voted to support [the initiative to end the income tax]. . . [Not] a single Republican or Democratic candidate for Governor supports it."3

I suggest you burn their words in big letters on a T-shirt and wear it as often as you can until November 5th. But add this message below their statement, which they apparently forgot:

"The politicians who turn your paycheck into pork recommend you keep the income tax."

The MTF and their political pals will assure you they favor responsible government, especially in these times of economic uncertainty. In their more candid moments, they admit their campaigns do insult our intelligence. But intelligence is the last thing they want listening when they're making their con.

Tennessee's Valiant Fight

Can Massachusetts live without an income tax? You did for 129 years -- the period during which the dollar increased in worth. Nine other states have no income tax, though two of them, Tennessee and New Hampshire, tax interest and dividends only.4 Kentucky's government is similar in structure to Tennessee's, but Kentucky has an income tax. Yet from 1980 to 1998 the per capita economic growth rate of Tennessee exceeded Kentucky's, 47% to 36%.5

Earlier this summer, Tennessee's lawmakers faced an $800 million budget deficit, but refused to slash spending. So both Republicans and Democrats tried to pass a personal income tax. The people rallied, as they did last year in their first Tea Party protest. For days they assailed the capitol building in Nashville "with a wall of noise" until the legislature gave in. The bureaucrats had to shut down the state for three days, furloughing 22,000 state workers.6

How well do these lawmakers represent their constituents? "Seventy percent of Tennessee voters said the problem was overspending by government, not a revenue shortage, according to a Mason-Dixon poll."7 The legislators missed that poll, apparently.

Your Right to "Alter the Government"

Massachusetts, you can do it. You can bond with Tennessee and kill this punitive law. Read your state constitution -- it says when government ceases "to furnish [the citizens of Massachusetts] with the power of enjoying in safety and tranquility their natural rights, and the blessings of life", then "the people have a right to alter the government, and to take measures necessary for their safety, prosperity and happiness."8

Your natural rights have been violated. Only you get them back. Tell government to get their hands out of your pockets. Tell them their income tax is keeping you from enjoying the full blessings of life. Your compatriots in Tennessee and all across the land are rooting for you. On November 5th vote "Yes" to end the income tax.