Archive | wealthy taxes RSS feed for this section

105. Balancing Rich vs. Poor

8 Jul

Our country (USA) now has a certain established income (mostly from tax), and established expenditures. An increase or decrease in any source of income or expense will, as a general rule, either raise or lower the nation debt. To keep the budget constant and free of debt increase, you must keep all parts of it about the same, or set up see-saw rules: up in one area, down in another, and visa-versa. (These rules hold in general, but there can be minor complications.)

So if someone proposes more military spending then there will be less for other areas, for example, infrastructure spending. If we take away huge amounts of income by lowering taxes for the rich, then there could be less for Medicaid, education, environmental protection, or something else.

Trump and Republicans have always proposed decreasing our national income by lowering wealthy taxes. This by itself would increase the national debt. Further, Trump wants to greatly increase military spending. So now we have a lot of spending, with the consequence that other programs will suffer. Rich folks will buy more luxury items, and will be more effective in influencing Congress. And poor people will suffer as their special programs (such as Medicaid) will be diminished. There is a clear ethical problem: less luxury for millionaires (even billionaires) versus the deaths of people who lack health care.

For Trump, having a powerful military is very important because it is helpful in coercion, forcing other countries to go along with his plans. After all, his political and negotiating skills don’t seem to be very good, so he needs a very powerful military to get his way. Also, his political mistakes can be minimized by showing off his military might — similar to the displays of armaments by North Korea.

Another bonus for very rich people would be eliminating the inheritance tax. The cut-off for this tax is the inheritance of five-million dollars so it only applies to rich folk. The vast majority of U.S. citizens support the continuation of this tax.  I have noticed that when Trump mentions inheritance tax, it is very quickly and with a lowered voice.

If the Republicans can achieve the above goals, which make wealthy people even richer, then these are some of the areas that could be adversely affected:
education, health care, State Department functions, Planned Parenthood, Medicaid, Medicare, infrastructure improvement, scientific research, medical research, various tech programs, environmental protections, etc. Let’s ask Trump to do with the Military, what he has proposed in other situations — lets hold the extra spending and make it more efficient instead.


80. Dirty Tricks Win Election

13 Dec

A number of actions occurred during the recent U.S. election process that can be classified as dirty tricks — and led to the Trump win. Here are the most important:
1. Suppression of voters resulting from Republican state-government legislation. One method was to decrease the number of voting days, which caused a decrease in minority voting. A Republican supreme court recently abolished rules to control voter suppression laws and red state governments rapidly took advantage of this.
.                        THE FBI DIRECTOR WAS A REPUBLICAN
2. Republican FBI director Comey interfered with the election process. The first problem was his assessment of Hillary as “extremely careless.” He has no baseline, no data from other similar officials, to make this conclusion. Maybe if other leaders were examined in detail, they would have been worse. The next problem was his announcement of an additional email investigation, 11 days before the election — violating agency rules. Comey and many FBI officials are Republicans. It is well established that there were FBI-agent leaks and excessive investigative actions.
3. Russian hacking influence. All the major U.S. intelligence agencies agree that the Russians hacked the Democratic National Committee. They then chose to release a number of private emails by high ranking Democrat officials. There was nothing illegal in the emails, but private conversations can be misinterpreted in a negative way.
4. Hillary was dogged by numerous unjustified congressional investigations, which ultimately led to nothing.
5. Women that Hillary’s husband had affairs with were paraded in the audience during one of the debates.
6. Online web sites that pretended to be valid news sources spread lies about Hillary and her campaign. This was a serious problem, as many voters get most of their info from such social Internet sources.


In addition to the “tricks”, Trump lied about many facts, painting a terrible picture of the Democrat candidate. One of the most ridiculous lies was that Hillary initiated the Pres. Obama “birther” movement. He also said that Pres. Obama founded ISIS. Some of the lies were later retracted, but they still had an effect. Trump’s lying exceeds everyone else that has run for major office, but he belongs to a party that has a major lie as a premise: if you lower taxes for very rich people, and make them even richer, somehow the extra money will “trickle down” to the rest of us. There is a history of lowering taxes for the very rich, which shows that the “trickling” does not happen. They get richer and we stay the same. Even the Pope pointed this out. They can’t be honest and say: vote for us so that we can become even richer. There are many other similar GOP lies.

                      YES !  HILLARY WON BY 2.5 MILLION VOTES
If you combine the small effects of each the “dirty tricks” and lies, you have enough influence to shift the election from Hillary to Trump. Remember that voting was very close in the swing states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania — and that Hillary actually won the popular vote by 2.5 million — YES !! 2.5 million more citizens voted for Hillary than Trump. This will go down in history as the greatest injustice in the U.S. history of presidential elections. I hope members of the electoral college will change their votes accordingly. The future of our country and others could be markedly affected by this outcome.

64. Profit by Creating Fears

31 Jul

Sub-title: Trump and Davidson, similar despicable methods.

For a year or so, many political leaders in both parties have recognized that Trump is fear-mongering voters as a method to get elected — and judging from past behavior, also to make copious profits. Personal profit has always been his goal and why should we believe otherwise now. Often his plan is to distort facts (like our military is a disaster) and then to say that he alone can solve this (made-up) problem. (Hillary, on the other hand, has a long history of helping people.)  Please see my previous blogs for more details on these issues.

I just listened to a video clip by James Dale Davidson about a future financial disaster for the USA. For many boring minutes with lots of repetition he described a stock market crash, massive unemployment, food lines, devalued houses, worthless U.S. dollars, hurricane destruction, etc. The whole world will be against us and will get revenge for our long control of global trade. Along the way, Davidson promised to tell how each of us can be protected by reading his publications free of charge. As the clip progressed it became more and more clear that he would finish by trying to sell profitable literature. In the end, little was free, and his advice would cost hundreds of dollars.

Davidson should have learned his lesson many years ago. In 1993 he co-authored a book The Plague of the Black Debt where he made some dire predictions about President Bill Clinton (will have one term) and the U.S. economy, all of which were dead wrong.  Our future U.S. economy will go through cycles of success and failure, but we don’t need self-fulfilling doomsday prophecies.

Billionaire Michael Bloomberg (former NY mayor) called Trump a CON man and I am sure it would be the same for Davidson — fear-mongering for profit. I am writing this blog because I was struck by the similarity in manipulation.

For those who do not know how Trump will profit, here are examples:

1. His written proposed U.S. budget involves a substantial decrease in taxes for very rich people. But even worse, it will massively increase our national debt with very profound consequences for all of us.

2. He has stated that workers are paid too much and he will not increase minimum wage.  So, Trump can pay less in wages.

3. After leaving office, he can profit from books (he pretends to write) and by speaking fees.
Trump if nothing else, is an expert in profiting from the losses of others, so I imagine secret deals while in office will make him (and family) richer.  Of course, profit is probably not his only goal, I assume that power and ego are also of interest.

I have to add a comment on a recent Trump blunder (see my previous blogs for a detailed critique of his candidacy). He insulted the Muslim father of a fallen soldier. The father stated that Trump has never sacrificed for our country. Trump answered that his sacrifice was “working very, very, hard” and making lots of money. Actually, if he had worked very hard (like most of us) and earned little money I could be sympathetic. But what does Trump know about hard work. He started off with $1,000,000 and his employees did all the hard work. After his early business failures, he cleverly figured out how to greatly profit from such failures. He would obtain a large loan based on family wealth, make false promises, let the business fail with lots of lay-offs, and make money by paying himself a good salary, and by not fully paying employees and vendors. Evidence for this is hundreds of law-suits.

46. The Candidates 2016

26 Feb

I just watched the latest Republican debate tonight (Feb. 25, 2016) and, being a Democrat, I felt really good about the Republican self-destruction. The press and the candidates all want to complicate the issues, but the fundamentals are really clear.

An examination of written budgets and various issues have indicated, for many years, that Republicans are primarily interested in making fortunes for very rich people and corporations. This is accomplished by lowering tax rates for rich people, simplifying tax code, abolishing regulations, gaining subsidies, etc. When you simplify tax code or reduce regulations, its easier for rich people to circumvent rules. The salaried workers gain nothing because the rules are already simple and fixed for them. Republicans are unashamedly committed to blocking the progress of Democrats and Obama, even if it results in destroying our country. It is Republicans that are dysfunctional, not Congress in general.

So Republicans have a fundamental problem. They can’t be honest and say to folks: “vote for us so that we can become even richer.”

Religion is just a diversion. Under both parties, there is no restriction on beliefs or place of worship. Both parties will provide a strong military, both will follow the Supreme Court and the established law. On the question of foreign policy, both parties are saying about the same thing. But I would assert that Democratic candidates are generally more thoughtful and careful in their decision making.

Here is my brief assessment of the highest polling candidates:

TRUMP: Impulsive, over-simplifying, unthoughtful, inconsistent and unprepared. He cannot be corrupted by wealthy contributors because he is already corrupted.   He is committed to all the negative factors listed above in my second paragraph.  He is a genius at making money for himself, but how does that help the rest of us. He panders to less-educated people. (Please see my previous blogs about Trump.)

RUBIO: Definitely a good candidate for high-school class president. Not ready for prime time. He may mature and be ready for the 2020 or 2024 election, but he does have the traditional negative GOP values.

CRUZ: He reminds me of the infamous Joe McCarthy, Senator from 1947 to 1957. Or maybe he is more like Pres. Nixon who presided over a culture of dirty tricks. I can picture him telling religious folks that they should plant a seed with him for $1000 and this will be returned, through divine intervention, with a 10-fold profit.

H. CLINTON: A really brilliant women who has the right ideals and has a long list of substantial accomplishments. She is quick witted and debates really well. She would make a very good President.  All of the GOP “scandals” are nonsense and strictly political.

SANDERS: Frankly, what Sanders is saying now, I have been thinking for many years, and it is wonderful to find someone who is enthusiastic about real change.  People like me need to have hope, and Sanders says the right things. If he were to become President, he might only accomplish half of what he is proposing, but even that would be marvelous. The sad part is that he is somewhat lacking in presidential charisma, which doesn’t bother me, but it could affect his success. I voted for him because I would like to give him a chance to show what he can do.

My dream for President and Vice-President is some combination of Clinton, Sanders, and the amazing Elizabeth Warren. I would like to see all of them working to restore our country to greatness: a true democracy, where caring for its people is the main goal.

25. Bernie Sanders’ Interpretation of “Socialism”

23 Aug

When Bernie Sanders calls himself a “Socialist”, his various statements on
the matter indicate the following interpretation.

Government should promote “social” programs that lead to a fair distribution
wealth. He does not say that capitalism or free enterprise should be abolished,
merely that they must be regulated to promote the economic concerns of non-rich people. This can be acomplished by a reversal of the taxation trend that
for years has been directing money away from the middle class and towards the
very rich; and by promoting programs such as Social Security and Medicare.
He does not say that enterprising people cannot acquire wealth.
It is the extremes and corrupt policies that must dealt with.

He points to the social successes of Scandinavian countries, which could be a
model for ourselves. Bernie’s ideas are not unusual and many Americans have
promoted similar thoughts. Critics have used certain strict definitions
of the term “socialist” to ridicule his ideas, but the specifics of what he advocates is the majority view.

21. Simple Political ReWording with Dangerous Consequences

26 Apr

This is a short blog devoted to something so important that it deserves a separate brief piece.  A minor alteration in a short phrase can have a profound negative affect on the outcome of elections. Here it is in its original form (supported by most Democrats) and its slanted rewriting for diversion:

1.  Original:  “Raise tax collection for the very rich”

2.  Slanted:  “Raise taxes”

The second looks similar to the first, but there is a profound difference. The second scares the general public and is a blatant misquote.  Republicans love to say that Democrats want to raise taxes.  They leave off: “for the very rich”.   I have seen this alteration over and over again and its negative effect is profound.  It really affects voter behavior and causes horrible damage to our country.

Here is an example.   According to CNN Money, “Calling for higher taxes on the rich has been a feature of every one of Obama’s budgets since 2009.”     See:

Republicans usually rephrase this as: “Obama wants to raise taxes”.  In fact, Obama has repeatedly said that he wants to lower or hold steady taxes for the middle class.  You can see this in the legislation he has promoted.   See the following for more info on Obama and middle-class tax reduction: