EyeWitless News: Poll Reveals Majority of Americans Favor Taxing the Rich to Balance the Budget

Idiocy reigns supreme in Amerika.  Sixty-one percent of Amerikans favor taxing the rich in order to balance the federal budget, according to a 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair poll conducted from November 29 to December 2, 2010.  Only four percent favored cutting Medicare and three percent favored cutting Social Security.  Story at Newsmax's MoneyNews.

I would theorize that the 1,067 adults polled were randomly selected from various nursing homes in Connecticut, Delaware, and Massachusetts, but I would consider the source to be even more suspect.  Any poll commissioned by CBS, the home of "Rathergate", is deserving of a truckload of skepticism.  I have noticed that CBS polls of the Oba-One's approval are the most wildly optimistic of all the polls reported at RealClearPolitics.com.  I think that the 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair poll is nothing more than a fraud designed to give lily-livered-liberals a shot of courage and reason to believe that the public is in favor of further job-killing progressive taxation.

Which reminds me of an old, humorous explanation of the modern tax system and the class jealousy and warfare that the system has abetted since the social planners unveiled it generations ago.  I had forgotten about it until a friend emailed it to me today.  It goes like this:

THE TAX LAWS EXPLAINED IN BEER DRINKING TERMS

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100...

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7..
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do as fair.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,"but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our new tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Tangibles Should be Things You Can Touch

This post is inspired by all the advertising and discussion I have been reading over the past year or so about owning precious metals. There is a lot of information out there urging us to invest in precious metals such as gold and silver, and much of this makes sense given the state of the economy and the increasing decline of our fiat currency, the dollar.

I have to wonder, however, if the market for gold in particular is being manipulated by the powers that be for their own benefit. By "the powers that be" I am referring to the government, banks, and investment firms. I have noted before the interesting status of the price of gold, that it seems to be maintaining at between $1,100.00 and $1,125.00 per ounce for several months now. Having read a little about the nature of the commercial gold market and its manipulation (here), I am convinced that the price of gold is being manipulated to forestall the collapse of the dollar and everything attached to it.

I do agree with those "experts" who espouse owning gold (and silver) as a tangible which will hold most, if not all, of its value no matter the economic conditions. I particularly agree with those that advise physically owning gold rather than investing in gold "on paper".

I don't think that I am the only person who has noticed the exponential increase in advertisements and advice to buy gold. I can hardly turn on the radio, open a magazine, or visit a blog without some exhortation to buy gold. I note that this increase coincides with the rise in the price of gold over $1,000.00 per ounce. Given the money spent on the advertisements, I have to wonder what the profit expectation would be from the delivery of so much gold. If the gold has so much value now due to factors such as the weak economy, a weak dollar, and the possibility of impending economic collapse, why are so many companies eager to sell gold now?

Then the answer occurred to me: They aren't selling gold. Think about it. How many of these purchasers of gold are actually taking physical delivery of the gold? How many purchasers are simply holding pieces of paper which states that the buyer has purchased a certain amount of gold from the seller, and nothing more? What are these pieces of paper really worth? What does a purchaser get if he/she demands delivery?

The gold market consists largely of traders who buy and sell pieces of paper representing "ownership" of gold. The vast majority never see or possess the gold. The pieces of paper are worth what the traders say they are worth so long as everyone believes that the gold exists. If someone tries to call in their gold, the market rules generally allow for settlement of the gold contract in cash. As soon as someone seriously makes a substantial demand for delivery, or when the "cash" in the cash settlement is worthless (ala Zimbabwe dollars), the whole scheme will come crashing down. It will crash because there is nowhere near enough gold to fulfill the contracts.

If the price of gold starts breaking out into new highs every day, as would be likely in an economic collapse, delivery might be demanded but it will be too late. This will occur at the end stage, where survivors try unsuccessfully to pull what they can out of the rubble of the collapse.

This scheme of selling gold on paper works particularly well when, as now, gold prices are high. There is little risk that the big players in the market will ever have to deliver the gold, short of an outright economic collapse where the dollar becomes worthless. If the price stays the same or slowly increases, there is no reason to demand deliver of the gold, as it appears to be a good investment. If the price of gold declines, the owner of the contract will sell the "gold" in the contract without ever having seen it to avoid further loss.

The following analogy is how I see the current gold market: You give me a thousand dollars to invest, taking it on faith that I have invested in widgets. Of course, there would also be a small brokering fee and/or fee to store the widgets for your convenience. If the price of widgets holds or slightly increases in value, you will probably leave the "investment" alone and I will be able to use the money as I see fit. If I am smart I will have many investors just like you so that I can either live off the interest by investing the money for myself, or I will have enough of a cash cushion to pay off those investors who want to withdraw. With this system I could take advantage of most investors, if not all, by arbitrarily declaring that the price of widgets has declined by forty percent. Those investors who decide to take their losses and cash out will have abandoned forty percent of their investment to me without me actually investing anything in widgets or providing verification that the widgets exist. If paper money should become worthless and widgets worth their weight in gold, good luck collecting widgets from me as I will have disappeared in the chaos of the collapse.

Investing in tangibles, as those of us preppers are wont to do, should only be in items we can physically possess. Only items that we possess have any value in a future economic collapse, societal collapse, or other calamity. Silver coinage, ammunition, and even cans of chili will have more stored value than any pieces of paper denoting ownership of gold purportedly held in some far off warehouse. When the collapse happens, holders of paper gold will be occupying FEMA camps with people waiting for their government checks.

Knowing the Unprepared

Sometimes I wonder whether all the efforts I put into preparedness really have any purpose. I haven't gone whole-hog into this venture, as I do not have an underground bunker in my backyard, nor do I have a retreat in the woods complete with solar panels, rain catchment system, and a moat. I have, however, started changing the way I live to be better prepared for eventualities.

I have been slowly changing my vehicles to emphasize four-wheel-drives that can carry some cargo and tow a trailer. I have some use for these in my ordinary life as there are materials to haul and camping trips to be made.

I have also been upgrading my camping equipment, as much of this equipment is useful for bugging in as well as bugging out. If the power goes out for a week like it did in the winter of 1996, I can see my way around the kitchen with oil lamps while I heat up my canned chili on the campstove. Other camping equipment would be similarly useful, whether it be water filters or portable propane hot water heaters.

I have also been putting away food that stores for long periods, and increasing the amount of convenience foods I keep on hand. For example, we like canned ravioli, so I keep more on hand and rotate through it.

I don't know whether my preps will enable my family and I to survive an economic collapse, natural disaster, or TEOTWAWKI, but I would like to think we have a fighting chance. Provided we don't get overrun or have to flee without any of our preps, I figure that we could survive nearly a year on what I have put away.

The problem I see in preparing for an uncertain future is that we are the only ones in the family that are doing it. My brother visited me recently from Alaska (we both grew up there) and stayed a few days at my home. When he saw my rows of buckets along the back wall of the kitchen, he started looking into them. I told him that it was long-term food storage. His reaction? "Oh, you're one of those." Meaning "survivalist" types. He just doesn't get it, although I thought that he would have been a little more in tune considering that almost all food in Alaska has been trucked in.

Incidentally, prepping is not new to me. I have been putting away preps on and off since 1994. I have been taking it more seriously for about the past year.

I took my brother with me to the gun show that was in town for the weekend. One of the tables was occupied by a pro-militia group. My brother had a negative reaction and remarked about the anti-government, "redneck" types. He is usually reliably conservative and despises Comrade Obama as much as I do, but I do not think that he understands what ordinary people are feeling about the Obama administration and the economy.

I sense that my brother thinks I am a paranoid, survivalist, gun-nut. That is probably true, and I take no offense. However, I worry about him because he acts like all of the other sheeple that I know. Content that his paycheck keeps clearing and that his current lifestyle continues uninterrupted. Meanwhile the winds of change are swirling around. What will happen to him if the economy does collapse or if hyperinflation turns our country into a post-modern Weimar republic? How will he provide for his own children? He does not see what is coming, scoffs at being prepared, and is unconcerned.

I have put emphasis on prepping for those I have a direct responsibility to save, namely myself, my significant other, and my child. I not only worry about how my brother and other relatives are going to make it when the SHTF, but I worry about my own family. We have preps to get through any number of scenarios, but our survival would be seriously impaired if we had to provide for twelve on preps meant for three. Most of our relatives do not know about my preparedness "hobby", but we are the ones who are always prepared and that everyone else comes to. I have no doubt it will be the same when SHTF.

None of this had really bothered me until my brother came to visit. Now I have something to think about....

Vote for Most Ridiculous Lawsuit of the Month

Time again to exercise your right to vote. Vote on the most ridiculous lawsuit of the month.

Your choices are:

Vegan group sues to get cancer-risk label put on hot dogs Read Story
Tourist sues hotel, claiming swimming pool got daughter pregnant Read Story
Man sues Burning Man festival after tripping and falling into fire Read Story
Man sues Apple, claiming iPod equipped to receive threats from Mafia Read Story
Ex-employee sues after fired for pulling knife on coworker Read Story

Who Decided Who is Red and Blue?

This whole red state, blue state thing has me puzzled. As in the political parties, conservative vs. socialist (liberal doesn't seem to apply anymore, as that would suggest moderation). Just who the hell chose red for conservative Republicans?

It seems to me that the commies have succeeded again in defining their opponents to their opponents' detriment. In my youth "red" as a political color was associated with the far-left communists and marxists, which is today the Obama/Emmanuel wing of the Democratic Party. To be considered "red" was to be considered an extremist.

Red is also traditionally associated, from the days of the Revolutionary War, with the British while blue is associated with the Continental Army. During the Civil War, blue was the color of the Union Army uniforms, while the Confederacy (seen as racist by socialist/marxists) had gray uniforms.

Sometime in the last twenty years the color red has become strongly associated with conservatives, and Republicans in particular. Seems to me that the media, in conjunction with their leftist comrades, have taken advantage of the negative association to the color red as a political adjective and applied it to conservatives.

Meanwhile, Democrats have been cast in the color blue, symbolic of the fight for freedom from British colonial oppressors and the fight to preserve the Union against the "racist" Confederacy.

I have been a conservative since I was a teenager, and a sometime Republican. I cannot help but think that the left and their cohorts in the elitist media have somehow used the symbolism of colors to influence a substantial percentage of Americans into thinking that the "red" conservatives are the enemy of America.

Judging by the vast amount of brainless wonders I have encountered who are also fervent Obama supporters, I suspect that something as simple as color association can be used to influence these mindless drones. A more logical explanation for the Obamoronism escapes me.

Not Saved or Created by Obummer

I tend to snicker whenever I read (and frequently do read) some boast by that idiot Obummer about the jobs that are supposedly saved or created by his economic Ponzi scheme. Anyone who believes that the government's Porkulus package has saved a single non-government or non-United Auto Workers job is an idiot who deserves to be taxed to death for emitting carbon dioxide.

A couple of months ago I ranted against Obummer raising tobacco taxes and opined that doing so would only hurt the poor. I also commented that because the new taxes would disproportionately affect the poor, it violated Obummer's pledge not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000.00 per year.

Now we see that Obummer's new tax not only hurts the poor, but it puts Americans out of work. The company that makes Hav-a-Tampa cigars (cheap, machine-made, but made in America) is closing its Florida plant, putting 495 Americans out of work. I read the story in the Miami Herald.

When will this country finally wake up and say NO to these bullshit social engineering experiments? And yes, I do realize that the additional taxes are to fund the State Childrens Health Insurance Program. However, the source of funds is only temporary. As the State of Washington has found every time it raises tobacco taxes, the tax boon is short lived as people either cut down on use or find ways around paying the tax.

Now, I realize that smoking is bad. However, in keeping with my conservative, libertarian beliefs, I believe that it is personal choice whether to smoke or engage in any other bad habits (although I am firmly against legalizing hard drugs such as meth, cocaine, and heroin). Don't get in my face about my smokes, and I won't torch your jumbo-size bag of Doritos.

We are about to engage in social engineering on a scale that even Hitler, Stalin, and Mao could only envy. From state-run health insurance, government-run car companies, the socialist restructuring of the financial sector, to the hysteria over "global warming" and "green living" we are being herded up like cattle (OK, sheeple) and put in a pen for a managed existence. And to what societal cost? Do people even realize what freedoms are being flushed down the toilet so they can have cradle-to-grave care and "free" asswiping from the Obamanation? How many freedoms, and how many lost jobs, will it take before people reject this crap? The flushing sound just keeps getting louder and louder. It just makes me sick thinking about it.

Pavlov Drives a Taco Truck

EYEWITLESS NEWS

Anyone remember Pavlov's dog? You know, the one that would salivate whenever Ivan Pavlov rang a bell? Pavlov gave the dog a snack whenever Pavlov rang the bell. After a while, the dog expected a snack when he heard the bell ring, and started salivating at the sound.

Fast food vendors have applied high technology to the concept. It seems a fleet of Korean taco trucks has come up with the idea of Twittering its customers to let them know when the taco trucks will be in the area. Like Pavlov's dog, the Twitterees start salivating for the snack. Apparently ringing the Twitter bell has been quite successful for the taco trucks.

Read the Newsmax story.

It does, however, make me wonder a bit about the state of our society. What other things can the sheeple be programmed to do at the ring of the Twitter bell?

Vote for Most Ridiculous Lawsuit of the Month

Exercise your right to vote today. Vote on this months' Most Ridiculous Lawsuit.

Choices are:

Woman attacked by cheeseburger-throwing homeless man sues restaurant.

Woman burns herself melting wax, sues manufacturer over "dangerous product".

Man sues Chicago White Sox over free t-shirt fired into stands.

Old woman sues over banishment from senior center for bad behavior.

Teacher's aide sues 8-year-old who knocked her over going for ice cream.

Composer sues orchestra for shortening performance of his magnum opus.

Forget About Swine Flu for a Moment

It seems that the Swine Flu is not being all it was hyped to be. The spread does not seem to be exponential and the only significant effects appear to have been in Mexico. While I am keeping a wary eye on the news about Swine Flu, I cannot help but begin to wonder if this is a diversion to keep our minds off of more important matters.

A topic which scares me, and should scare anyone who has been conscious since September 11, 2001, is the issue of Pakistan. The Taliban have been doing quite well in their efforts to topple the government of Pakistan, a member of the nuclear club and the home of A.Q. Khan's laboratory. This subject has not been receiving the news coverage it deserves, but the news I have read foretells some interesting times ahead:

Petraeus: Next Two Weeks Critical to Pakistan's Survival
Essentially, the government of Pakistan could fall to the radical Islamist Taliban in the next two weeks. What then happens to the nukes? What will Pakistan's mortal enemy, India, do? Will conflagration erupt over Kashmir?

Does U.S. have 'Plan B' for Pak Nukes?
Obama supposedly has a Plan B. So, what exactly is Plan B? Supposedly the U.S. may be able to thwart the use of access codes for Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, something that Pakistan supposedly agreed to in February 2009. Story here. Hopefully this is true. Unfortunately, I don't believe it given the tensions between Pakistan and the U.S. over the past year over allegations of the U.S. violating Pakistani sovereignty.

Israel: Pakistan's Nukes Could Fall to Taliban.
Even the Secretary of State for the Second Carter Administration, Hillary Rodham Clinton, commented on the danger: ""I think we cannot underscore [enough] the seriousness of the existential threat posed to the state of Pakistan by the continuing [Islamist] advances," Clinton said, adding that an unstable and nuclear-armed Pakistan would pose a "mortal threat" to the United States and other countries. If she said that, she must believe that the U.S. does not have a handle on the Pakistani nukes. Note that this article was from the Jerusalem Post, not the MSM in the U.S.

If there is danger ahead, I think it is more likely to be from the destabilization of Pakistan than from the Swine Flu. I could be wrong, which is why I have more than N95 masks and rubber gloves in my basement.

Why I'm doing this....

I just made the first post to this, my brand-new blog. Although I don't expect that anyone will be reading this, I thought that I should explain why I am doing what I am doing. One day, I may need to remind myself why I started writing.

I am just sick and tired of watching this country waste away. I have had it with wienies telling me that my rights are subservient to the special interest group of the day. Likewise with the idea that I should have to give up rights to make other people feel comfortable and included. I have the right to speak my mind, and I intend to do it here.


Like some other bloggers I read every day, I believe conditions in this country are such that some kind of societal upheaval is on its way. I don't know if it will be the current economic depression, some other internal strife, or outside forces. Whatever it may be, I started prepping a few years ago so that my family and I can be somewhat self-sufficient on that fateful day when the power is off, the water stops running, and the stores are closed.


To me, all of the above boils down to writing about guns, politics, survival, and the decline of civilization which is the modern era. These are the topics with which I perpetually annoy those around me. Now they can have some time off.....

My very first rant....

Jeez, I just can't believe what I read sometimes. I firmly believe that government is the root of most of our current problems. Granted, this is not to say that we would be problem-free without government, but it seems that government intervention multiplies a problem to the point that the cure is ten times worse than the original malady.

Now, I just read today on a prepper site the proposition that less government intervention and lower taxes bear some responsibility for today's economic mess. Where do I even start on this?

Off the top of my head, government does little more than suck up resources and limit choices. Regulation by Uncle Sugar costs money, and that means taxes. When you pay more taxes, you have less money to spend, and therfore fewer choices. The regulation itself limits what is available in the marketplace, whether it be beans, bullets, or even that home loan.


If people want to make risky investments, I believe that they have that right and should eat their losses when things don't work out. If you get a mortgage for a home you have no hope of being able to afford and you end up in foreclosure and living in a van down by the river, so be it. If you loaned the money for the mortgage to the guy who could not afford the home and ended up living in a van down by the river, maybe your bank should go under. Where are the Darwinists when we need them? Instead, we get stupid people who think government should rush in to rescue people from their own stupidity.


Now, if people are too stupid to be able to manage their own lives and want government to tax away the majority of their income and then dictate what can be purchased with the remainder, I suppose that is their right. Get your hand out for the handout, the Obama Express has a payout for everyone. Don't worry about how it's going to be paid for. Just get your hunk-o-pork. Hope that salty, greasy, unfulfilling gob of government goo is worth trading away your freedom.

I, for one, am not a sheeple and do not want Uncle Sugar taking my money and calling the shots. I refuse to submit to the idea of the collective good trumping my personal rights. I will not trade my personal freedoms for a hunk of government cheese and a side of government pork. I am also not willing to pay for anyone else's cheese and pork, and I am not willing to foist the bill upon my children. I am one of the sixty percent of Americans who actually pays taxes. So please, give me more deregulation and lower my taxes!