1 2
Toyman01
Toyman01 GRM+ Memberand SuperDork
4/19/11 3:47 p.m.

I found this at another forum. Some of you might not agree with it, but I found it to be an interesting read.

Charlie Reese was a columnist at the Orlando Sentinel. This is supposed to be his final column.

545 PEOPLE--By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The President does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but PRIVATE, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who WAS the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She WAS the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want. If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Army & Marines are in Iraq and Afghanistan it's because they want them in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.

Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.

This looked to be tacked on the end of the article and doesn't read like it was written by Reese.

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Be sure to read all the way to the end:

Tax his land,

Tax his bed,

Tax the table,

At which he's fed.

Tax his tractor,

Tax his mule,

Teach him taxes

Are the rule.

Tax his work,

Tax his pay,

He works for peanuts anyway!

Tax his cow,

Tax his goat,

Tax his pants,

Tax his coat.

Tax his ties,

Tax his shirt,

Tax his work,

Tax his dirt.

Tax his tobacco,

Tax his drink,

Tax him if he

Tries to think.

Tax his cigars,

Tax his beers,

If he cries

Tax his tears.

Tax his car,

Tax his gas,

Find other ways

To tax his ass.

Tax all he has

Then let him know

That you won't be done

Till he has no dough.

When he screams and hollers;

Then tax him some more,

Tax him till

He's good and sore.

Then tax his coffin,

Tax his grave,

Tax the sod in

Which he's laid...

Put these words

Upon his tomb,

Taxes drove me

to my doom...'

When he's gone,

Do not relax,

Its time to apply

The inheritance tax..

Accounts Receivable Tax

Building Permit Tax

CDL licenseTax

Cigarette Tax

Corporate Income Tax

Dog License Tax

Excise Taxes

Federal Income Tax

Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)

Fishing License Tax

Food License Tax

Fuel Permit Tax

Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)

Gross Receipts Tax

Hunting License Tax

Inheritance Tax

Inventory Tax

IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)

Liquor Tax

Luxury Taxes

Marriage License Tax

Medicare Tax

Personal Property Tax

Property Tax

Real Estate Tax

Service Charge Tax

Social Security Tax

Road Usage Tax

Recreational Vehicle Tax

Sales Tax

School Tax

State Income Tax

State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)

Telephone Federal Excise Tax

Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax

Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes

Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax

Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax

Telephone State and Local Tax

Telephone Usage Charge Tax

Utility Taxes

Vehicle License Registration Tax

Vehicle Sales Tax

Watercraft Registration Tax

Well Permit Tax

Workers Compensation Tax

STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY? Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, & our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

What happened? Can you spell 'politicians?'

Edited trying to fix the formatting.

pilotbraden
pilotbraden HalfDork
4/19/11 4:00 p.m.

Damn, that is the truth as I see it. Braden

Otto Maddox
Otto Maddox HalfDork
4/19/11 4:04 p.m.

Mom stayed home to raise the kids

Hmmmm

MrJoshua
MrJoshua SuperDork
4/19/11 4:12 p.m.
Otto Maddox wrote: Mom stayed home to raise the kids Hmmmm

Yeah, that doesn't really need to be in that article. Saying a family could live on one income allowing them to raise their own child instead of relying on the wisdom of strangers (day care) would have been more appropriate.

aircooled
aircooled SuperDork
4/19/11 4:14 p.m.

Replace with who? The next dink the Reps or Dems say they want you to vote for? They selected the ones that are there now!

If the problem with the government are the politicians, then the problem with the politicians are the political parties.

Is he implying that he wants to live in the country as it was 100 years ago? With some research I am sure we can find a number of things that were common 100 years ago that are less then tolerable today.

Otto Maddox
Otto Maddox HalfDork
4/19/11 4:32 p.m.

He could have just said politicians suck.

fast_eddie_72
fast_eddie_72 Dork
4/19/11 5:26 p.m.

That's a cop out.

We put them there. We keep putting them there. We go for the ones who yell the loudest and tell us what we want to hear. If they swear up and down they will never compromise, we like that best of all. We view compromise as weakness. We somehow believe that if we just hold out long enough, we'll get our way and to hell with "them". But it never quite works out.

Maybe we need to re-think that.

fast_eddie_72
fast_eddie_72 Dork
4/19/11 5:33 p.m.
Toyman01 wrote: Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

I can't let this one slide. This is part of the problem. High taxes? It's a subjective thing, I guess. Who's to say what's "high" or "low"?

But we can look at other countries. Could be that everyone has taxes that are too high. I don't know. But it at least gives us some idea where we stack up.

We're pretty close to Japan, looks like. S. Korea? Turkey? Mexico? Dunno. Maybe they're doing it better than we are, but somehow I don't think so. Shoot, even Bush told us he "kept taxes low".

Like I said, I guess it's subjective. High, low, whatever. Who's to say. They are where they are and they're not high enough to pay for all the stuff. Is it too much stuff or not enough taxes?

ransom
ransom GRM+ Memberand Reader
4/19/11 5:35 p.m.

In reply to fast_eddie_72 [EDIT er, fast_eddie_72's prior post]:

Indeed. That's probably the biggest gripe I have with all the shouting in politics and my biggest motivator to try to keep myself calm and have a halfway measured conversation.

Neither side (of any issue, and who's on what side changes from issue to issue, which is itself an important thing to remember) is going to get everything they want, and if they did, it wouldn't be a permanent arrangement.

carguy123
carguy123 SuperDork
4/19/11 5:47 p.m.

Great article, but the last part doesn't fit.

Now you know how the mortgage originators feel. All control was upline and yet the originators got the blame. It's kinda like blaming the 18 ticket agents who sold the tickets to the guys who crashed into the Towers.

All rules, regulations, loan types and underwriting guidelines - EVERYTHING came down from on high but the guy at the sharp end of the stick gets the blame.

aussiesmg
aussiesmg SuperDork
4/19/11 5:49 p.m.

Actually those figures are very distorted, take Australia for instance.

22 million Aussies are paying for the roads that cover a country almost the same size as the USA, of course there are going to be a higher tax on citizens, its the price of having that infrastructure. Then add in socialized medicine.

OK now why are we in the USA anywhere near that figure with 300 million people sharing the cost and, (as of right now) no socialized medicine

This is by no means complete but it shows that just including the % rate is very inaccurate.

Then add the corporate tax ratings and after the Japanese lowered theirs we are on top of the world.

http://alhambrainvestments.com/blog/2009/01/29/corporate-tax-rates-by-country-oecd/

fast_eddie_72
fast_eddie_72 Dork
4/19/11 5:51 p.m.

Man, there's a lot out there. Sorry, but this is kind of interesting...

This on kinda the same as the other one, but the average is interesting. Clearly we're "below average".

Okay, that's a lot. There's a load out there, but you all have the google. You can look for yourselves.

fast_eddie_72
fast_eddie_72 Dork
4/19/11 5:57 p.m.
aussiesmg wrote: Actually those figures are very distorted, take Australia for instance. 22 million Aussies are paying for the roads that cover a country almost the same size as the USA, of course there are going to be a higher tax on citizens, its the price of having that infrastructure. Then add in socialized medicine.

Huh. I don't follow. I think looking at percentage of GDP is a pretty good way to measure. Nobody put a gun to Australia's head and forced them to build roads they didn't want or have health care for everyone. Yup, that will make it more expensive. But you can't just eliminate it because you don't like it and we don't have it. It is what it is. We may not have socialized medicine, but we sure do have our share of expensive federal programs. Well, actually, we do have some pretty fair degree of socialize medicine in Medicade and Medicare and they are indeed a great big old hunk of our spending. But Australia almost certainly pays more.

But you can't do it that way. I bet they pay a load less for their Military. That's all important in the context of a discussion about where we are spending our money, but in a discussion about "high" or "low" taxes, it doesn't matter what it's being spent on. We're talking about how much we pay. And relative to most other folks, our taxes are low. And compared to what we've paid in the past, they're low, and I don't recall cutting any big programs. But, that's why we're in debt, isn't it?

Or it looks like it to me. I just used google. Maybe all of these sites are off base. I don't know.

aussiesmg
aussiesmg SuperDork
4/19/11 6:00 p.m.

That is exactly my point, you just made it for me, the figures are so loose they mean nothing. You have to compare like with like.

I notice how you deleted the part where I stated that my statements were incomplete. Are you running for office?

How do you figure this: Nobody put a gun to Australia's head and forced them to build roads they didn't want or have health care for everyone.

You are assuming so much, who said Australia doesn't want the roads or health care. All I am saying its impossible to compare two different programs and goals with a number

fast_eddie_72
fast_eddie_72 Dork
4/19/11 6:05 p.m.
aussiesmg wrote: That is exactly my point, you just made it for me, the figures are so loose they mean nothing. You have to compare like with like. I notice how you deleted the part where I stated the figures were incomplete. Are you running for office?

No, wait. They're all percentage of GDP, aren't they? Isn't that like for like?

Hey, man, if it's wrong it's wrong. No skin off my nose. Maybe we have the highest taxes on Earth. Just a quick google on my part. Doesn't matter to me either way. All I know is we spend more than we take in, so I don't care if they are high, they're not high enough to pay the bills.

I just don't think there's a huge conspiracy to make all the numbers on every web site look like they're low. I didn't seek out any "liberal" content. I just wanted to know. Like I said, if it's wrong, it's wrong. But they all looked like they were telling the same story.

stuart in mn
stuart in mn SuperDork
4/19/11 6:05 p.m.

It looks like that editorial has been edited somewhat. Snopes has the original version here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/reese.asp

aussiesmg
aussiesmg SuperDork
4/19/11 6:07 p.m.

lol

fast_eddie_72
fast_eddie_72 Dork
4/19/11 6:08 p.m.

Oh, and I did look at that link. I know I've heard that corporate rates are the highest in the world many times. Sounds like that is something we should look at. But I know that can be misleading too. There have been a lot of stories lately that show a lot of companies aren't paying a lot.

I think we need to make the whole thing a lot more simple so we can actually get a look at what's gonig on. I mean, just look at this conversation- it shouldn't be this hard. How can we possibly make any decisions if we can't figure out where we are? We just listen to some guy running for office who tells us we're paying too much. So, we believe him.

fast_eddie_72
fast_eddie_72 Dork
4/19/11 6:09 p.m.
stuart in mn wrote: It looks like that editorial has been edited somewhat. Snopes has the original version here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/reese.asp

Ah. That makes more sense.

aussiesmg
aussiesmg SuperDork
4/19/11 6:10 p.m.

Or not enough taxes if you listen to his opponent

carguy123
carguy123 SuperDork
4/19/11 6:16 p.m.

Snopes says he wrote the article but the last section isn't him and it has been updated a couple of times to change the names in the piece to whomever is in that position at the time.

Regardless of the rhetoric thrown out here the article is thought provoking and right on track.

Toyman01
Toyman01 GRM+ Memberand SuperDork
4/19/11 6:17 p.m.

This article was edited and printed several times over his career. The snopes version is 1995. The above version is 2001. The original printing was 1985. They are all a little different.

As stated, I don't think the tax stuff on the end was written by him.

aircooled
aircooled SuperDork
4/19/11 6:17 p.m.
stuart in mn wrote: It looks like that editorial has been edited somewhat. Snopes has the original version here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/reese.asp

That's great.

Something I have always suspected. These arguments are almost exactly the same arguments that have been going on for a LONG time, in this case 1985. Makes it even more poignant, since obviously little has changed.

Graefin10
Graefin10 New Reader
4/19/11 6:40 p.m.

First, thanks to Toyman01 for taking time to post this and thanks to GRM for providing the forum for us all to speak our minds.

One problem I see is that as much sense as it makes to vote them out of office, we are usually only given choices of politicians to replace the politicians we've chosen to vote out. Rarely does someone who is genuinely successful in a career other than being a lawyer able to sucessfully run for a major office. Even the very wealthy who have spent a great deal of their personal fortune to achieve public office almost never succeed. So how do we replace these people with a governing body that actually DOES have the well being of the CITIZENS in mind when they make their choices?

huge-O-chavez
huge-O-chavez SuperDork
4/19/11 6:52 p.m.
Toyman01 wrote: had the largest middle class in the world

Actually.. I'll dispute this point. At the end of the gilded age, we didn't really have a middle class.

1 2

You'll need to log in to post.

Our Preferred Partners
zwG1mpSonQYPEm7VCtF51vSqiXKAoXqjT4HTbSnGAB1oJGR1ZvoRmVs8HawH4nxY