NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/pnw/general/3038

Text File | 1992-12-22 | 3.7 KB | 74 lines

Newsgroups: pnw.general
Path: sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!eff!ssd.intel.com!psgrain!m2xenix!mtek!bud
From: [e-mail] (Bud Hovell)
Subject: Re: Tax the rich!
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: MTEK International, Inc.
Distribution: pnw
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 22:54:37 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Lines: 61

[e-mail] (Charles Wilson) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Walter Bright) writes:
>>$209 billion. Therefore, if you simply confiscated *all* the income of
>>the rich, we would not eliminate the deficit, which some projections
>>estimate at $400 billion next year.

>Nor would eliminating the ENTIRE defense budget for a year.  BUT,
>eliminating Social Security Benefits for just one year would completely
>pay for the deficit.  Interesting...

I'd be careful about making such statements, since Rosty may hear of it
and turn you into the Secret Service for making an implied threat against
his worthless life. :-) :-) He has *no* sense of humor about SS since a
gang of grey-hairs surrounded his gummint limo and bashed it sufficiently
to get the point across to him that SS is *strictly* off limits, no matter
it is the tit that pokes most prominently from the bloated government sow.

I read in the papers that liberals now tell us SS is a "regressive tax"
needing "reform" (translation: get a firm grip on your wallet). Pop quiz:
does anyone recall the good old days when the lying rascals in Congress
were still selling this unclever Ponzi scheme as "insurance" to be "fully
funded from contributions" (like FDR said), with withdrawals limited based
upon the amount of those "individual contributions"? And that it would be
applied to only the first, um, $10k of income? And the assertion that SS
would "never" be expected to give anyone enough money for full retire-
ment. Listen to what you are hearing now. Carefully.

Isn't it odd that liberals who have been scrupulously patrolling society
for even the smallest "unfairness" have required almost a half-century
to suddenly discover that SS is "regressive" -- a word that works well
only if coupled with the word "tax" (rather than "contribution", which
these liars insisted on as the operative covert terminology to promote
this grand theft)?.

If you are under the age of 30, you should be pissed through at what has
been going on. Your beans are making a one-way trip into the pork barrel,
kids, promoted there by the same liberal establishment that told your
grandparents how "cheap" would be SS ("less than 2% of wages") and the
same felons who said the same to your greatgrandparents about the Income
Tax ("never greater than 10% of taxable income, and then only for the
*very* rich"). And later tried to tell my generation that the National
Debt "isn't a problem, since we just owe the money to ourselves". Right.

Be well aware: the sizeable beans coming off your paycheck (that might
otherwise have been able to fund a meaningful retirement) ain't *never*
coming back out in your direction, ever again. They are gone for good,
if simple math is applied to the inexorable population numbers. You
are being "had", big time. And it's about to get alot worse.

Indeed, any time you hear words about taxes to be applied "only to the
very rich", count on it that you are being set up as a sucker for the
long term: the big money is -- and has always been -- in the middle
class.

And that's almost certainly you.
--
________________________________________________________________
[e-mail] ... uunet!m2xenix!mtek!bud ... [e-mail]
MTEK International, Inc.             Throughput Technology Corp.
Walk the talk.