Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
Visit Becks72's column >>

BECKS72

Articles Posted: 24  Links Seeded: 22
Member Since: 7/2009  Last Seen: 5/17/2012

What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

The inconvienient but true political history

Thu Jan 13, 2011 11:11 AM EST
By Becks72
Advertise | AdChoices

This is about as clear and easy to understand as it can be -

please read it!! (all the way to the end)

The article below is completely neutral -- not anti-republican or anti-democrat.

Charlie Reese, a retired reporter for the Orlando Sentinel has hit the nail directly on the head, defining clearly who it is that in the final analysis must assume responsibility for the judgments made that impact each one of us every day.

It's a short but good read.

Worth the time.

Worth remembering!

545 vs. 300,000,000

EVERY CITIZEN NEEDS TO READ THIS AND THINK ABOUT WHAT THIS JOURNALIST HAS SCRIPTED IN THIS MESSAGE.

READ IT AND THEN REALLY THINK ABOUT OUR CURRENT POLITICAL DEBACLE.

Charley Reese has been a journalist for 49 years.

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 is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is 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 can not 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 , it's because they want them in IRAQ 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...

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

Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.

What you do with this article now that you have read it......... Is up to you.

Not one of the following taxes existed 100 years ago,

Sales Tax
School Tax
Liquor Tax
Luxury Tax
Excise Taxes
Property Tax

Cigarette Tax
Medicare Tax
Inventory Tax
Real Estate Tax
Well Permit Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Inheritance Tax
Road Usage Tax
CDL license Tax
Dog License Tax
State Income Tax
Food License Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Gross Receipts Tax
Social Security Tax
Service Charge Tax
Fishing License Tax
Federal Income Tax

Building Permit Tax
IRS Interest Charges
Hunting License Tax
Marriage License Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Personal Property Tax
Accounts Receivable Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Telephone Federal Excise Tax

Telephone State and Local Tax
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax

Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)

Utility Taxes Vehicle License Registration Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax

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 in the hell happened?

Can you spell 'politicians? '

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Becks72's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: none
  • Public Discussion (28)
Becks72

All this income and still a deficit ? All this money plus the deficit spent on social programs ? Some one has there hand in the till !

  • 2 votes
Reply#1 - Fri Jan 14, 2011 11:36 AM EST
truthlover

I'm not sure we were the most prosperous nation in 1911. There were taxes in 1911 or the nation would have dissolved. Tax moneys are the glue of government.

Many of these taxes weren't around because what is not being taxed was not around: social security, telephones, recreational vehicles, gasoline and others.

Two questions for you:

1. What taxes DID Americans pay?

2. How were schools funded?

Thanks for the reflection. I also agree that we are wasting US taxpayer moneys on wars and I'm inclined to agree tentatively (without much time for thought/reflection) with:

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 , it's because they want them in IRAQ 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.

The question, of course, is "who" is "they"--I think it is the wealthy folks behind the curtain and that we live in a plutocracy.

  • 6 votes
#1.1 - Sun Feb 20, 2011 1:47 PM EST
bobbievee

The question, of course, is "who" is "they"--I think it is the wealthy folks behind the curtain and that we live in a plutocracy.

Exactly. Politicians, bureaucrats, judges all are constrained by the "system," and that system is controlled by the wealthy few through the corrupting influence of money (campaign financing, advocacy groups, issue-based advertising, lobbying, corporate control of information and propaganda, etc.). The GOP establishment are essentially henchmen for the rich, and corporate Democrats (Blue Dogs) are complicit.

  • 6 votes
#1.2 - Sun Feb 20, 2011 4:55 PM EST
Reply
CLM102502

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

This is the problem, they don't see it that way. Read my article and see why I believe they have other bosses. http://clm102502.newsvine.com/_news/2011/01/22/5899914-campaign-finance-reform

  • 2 votes
Reply#2 - Tue Jan 25, 2011 9:50 PM EST
Becks72

Start by eliminating foreign aid Three quarters of the pentagon and all foreign military bases. ( We would still have the power to destroy the entire world !) Then for the fun of it eliminate the DEA and there secret wars. Empty our prisons of drug offenders and treat them as addicts which they are. Then admit defeat on the war on drugs take the money out of them by legalization. Who is going to push the without financial incentives ?

Start rebuilding the infrastructure with the saving. This would create jobs, honest jobs then start cutting government agency's. To cut them now very well might cause us to go back into a economic free fall.

The Tea Party would cut agency's and jobs now but this is a great danger to the economy when there is not enough jobs now. Is that the agenda of the Tea Party to ruin the fragile recovering economy and the blame it on Obama ?

  • 3 votes
Reply#3 - Sun Feb 20, 2011 5:48 PM EST
chitownty

My man,we didn't have those taxes 100 years ago because half the things on your list DIDN'T EXIST 100 years ago.

  • 2 votes
#3.1 - Sun Feb 20, 2011 6:34 PM EST
Reply
Becks72

Yes but the other half did ! Which equals 100 percent growth !

    Reply#4 - Sun Feb 20, 2011 7:38 PM EST
    The BluOwle

    Simpl Simple Simple sollution to disempowering the oligarchal corporotacracy who OWNS the 545 head herd of political ponies - END CORPORATE PERSONHOOD!!!

    • 3 votes
    Reply#5 - Sun Feb 20, 2011 9:15 PM EST
    TryCommonSense-2821193

    Here! Here! That, in a nutshell, would resolve every problem this Country has. That a business is considered to have the same "human" and civil rights as a human being denigrates us all and speaks volumes about what the "Elites" think of the average individual.

    • 3 votes
    #5.1 - Mon Jul 4, 2011 1:36 PM EDT
    Reply
    The Working Stiff

    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.

    How very true.

    Yes, some say that there are puppet masters behind the scenes but to that I say these individuals can and should pull back on the strings.

    • 3 votes
    Reply#6 - Mon Feb 21, 2011 4:36 AM EST
    Boudicea

    I think the Judiciary should be given the power to impeach and/or remove the congress from office. Until they are not allowed to police themselves we'll see more of the same

    • 1 vote
    Reply#7 - Mon Feb 21, 2011 1:00 PM EST
    The BluOwle

    Sounds good on the surface of it, but then the Judiciary becomes the sole power by having authority over all the others - hense the establishment of the "3-way" power split. The FINAL Power is We The People, but the majority are simply far too ingnorant (uniformed & unaware) of the larger picture, not to mention simply complacient in it all. Easier to bury the head in the sand than to actually take the time, pay attention, get informed & get actively involved. Manditory voting laws force The People to stay on their toes, stay involved, and keep things in check, as it is our Citizen Responsibility to do so.

    • 3 votes
    #7.1 - Mon Feb 21, 2011 2:05 PM EST
    Boudicea

    Hi, BluOwle. I know the intrinsic problem with the suggestion but it's not really any less offensive than giving the Congress the power to police themselves. And I'm not sure about mandatory voting - that would really be a mess. You'd have 50% or more voting on name recongition alone - and we have enough of that now

    • 1 vote
    #7.2 - Mon Feb 21, 2011 2:08 PM EST
    TryCommonSense-2821193

    If one Branch of government is given the ability to remove another then you will just be saving the wealthy some money as they will only need to purchase that one branch instead of the others as well (as they have currently done).

    The problem is that there is no easy fix. People actually have to get off their collective behinds and educate themselves about the choices, and then vote!

    • 2 votes
    #7.3 - Mon Jul 4, 2011 1:41 PM EDT
    Dennis Kemmerer

    kjmgirl wrote:

    And I'm not sure about mandatory voting - that would really be a mess.

    We addressed that very question in a ConLaw exam a few semesters back.

    The long and short of it is that compulsory voting would almost certainly be found unconstitutional.

    • 2 votes
    #7.4 - Mon Jul 4, 2011 2:10 PM EDT
    Reply
    Becks72

    But who will impeach the partisan Judiciary ?

    • 1 vote
    Reply#8 - Mon Feb 21, 2011 2:14 PM EST
    Boudicea

    it appears to be a vicious cycle, doesn't it. But on any given day I (who really despise lawyers) would trust in the integrity of a judge before the integrity of a Congressman

      #8.1 - Mon Feb 21, 2011 2:18 PM EST
      Becks72

      In the past I might have agreed with you but there partisan actions of late make them very untrustworthy. Person hood to corporations and other purely political decisions put the in the same leaky boat as congress.

      • 3 votes
      #8.2 - Mon Feb 21, 2011 2:27 PM EST
      Boudicea

      OMG, it's a terrible thing that they actually interpreted the Constitution, isn't it? That's not PARTISAN. It's something called "informed". You think the SCOTUS just picks up the phone and calls some Congressman and says "Gee, what do you think?"

      The only time SCOTUS decisions are "partisan" is when they are decided in favor of what your opposition believes. (That is NOT directed directly at you, Becks, but at everybody who thinks the SCOTUS is partisan). I personally believe it to be the LEAST partisan Judiciary in the world.

      • 1 vote
      #8.3 - Mon Feb 21, 2011 2:46 PM EST
      TryCommonSense-2821193

      Well give SCOTUS the power to remove members of Congress and you watch how quickly the become the MOST partisan Judiciary in the world. I am inclined to think that they are more "ideological" than you appear to kjmgirl, but I absolutely agree with you that they always seem more partisan to people who disagree with a particular decision. And I don't think that either Liberal or Conservative Justices are more partisan than the other. But they are human.

      I, for instance, think that the recent decision to essentially legalize the bribing of Congress to be an attempt by Conservatives to give Corporations much greater control over who gets elected, and what they do once they get there. Frankly, the whole concept of interpreting money as "speech" pretty much is an automatic decision in favor of whoever has the ability to scream, isn't it? (And if it isn't, then why am I not allowed to offer the cop that pulls me over for speeding a contribution to the Police Athletic League on the spot? I'm not trying to influence him. I just want to express my support, the way Corporations do with Congress when regulations are being contemplated that they don't like!)

      Given that there are many jurisdictions in which Judges are elected, and therefore need to raise money and keep constituents happy, that kind of a decision seems to make it much easier for the wealthy and Corporations to get their way. There are already documented cases (in Texas, for instance) of "contributions" being made to Judges re-election campaigns while they were hearing cases in which the contributor was a party.

      But we can debate whether that makes this a "partisan" decision, or just a "bad" decision. I suspect that it is natural when a decision benefits one group over another to view it as partisan, even if it is just a bad decision. Both sides tend to do so.

        #8.4 - Mon Jul 4, 2011 1:58 PM EDT
        Reply
        The BluOwle

        Again - it is We The People who have the Power to impeach, it is incumbent upon the Citizenry to be informed, alert, etc. and the initiate & actively pursue such proceedings. Regardless of why folks take to the polls, the fact that, currently, a "good turnout" is 40% is the larger problem that has allowed the corporate takeover of the entire system, the majority of citizens aren't simply being represented. (we'll leave the whole scam of "professional politicians" to another discussion). "Trust" is obviously a personal determination, but safe to say NO judge/lawyer can be trusted any further than their 'McMansions' can be thrown; just look at the obvious buying off of at least 2 Supreme Court judges by the Koch Bros./GOP/corporate elile! Lest ANY of us ever forget: -- "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely!" this isn't just a fancy saying, it is an aximatic Truth that is reflective of the inner Nature of ALL Human Beings, NONE, ever, anywhere can be given absolute power, total final control. A screwball of a system -even if it ends in perpetual deadlock - is better than a consolidated power structure.

        Australia has one of the most productive demcratic political systems in place. A short explaination: ALL citizens are required to vote, if they don't like any of the candidates they simply write themselves in as a "vote out/opt out" measure. Aussies are some of the most politically aware citizenry anywhere to be found, in my experience. Getting the corporate influence out of our own system is the first & only real sollution, then making sure we ALL accept our own share of political responsibility is second so as to insure it never happens again. An ignorant & inactive populous is far too easy to control and manipulate as we can plainly see today.

        • 1 vote
        Reply#9 - Mon Feb 21, 2011 3:01 PM EST
        Boudicea

        We don't have the power to impeach. Read the Constitution

          #9.1 - Mon Feb 21, 2011 3:02 PM EST
          Reply
          The BluOwle

          No, you're right, but we DO have the Power to petition for impeachment proceedings, which is pretty much the same thing, allbeit a much longer process. Obviously the Constitution is, as they say, "A Living Document", by which it can (and should) be ammended to include things like clearly defined referendum voting on such issues. I've read & reread the Constitution many times & keep it bookmarked for easy access, LOL, I'm very much aware of the (lack of) finite specific details within it. It is clear on the fact that the Power rests in the hands of The People, how we use, or don't use, it is really up to us. We have a screwball twisted version of the Founders' intention simply because we believe we're too busy working & that "earning a Living" is more important & relevant to our day-to-day existance than political participation - nothing could be further from thee Truth.

          • 2 votes
          Reply#10 - Mon Feb 21, 2011 3:46 PM EST
          Becks72

          So true and so over looked.

            Reply#11 - Mon Jul 4, 2011 1:39 PM EDT
            TryCommonSense-2821193

            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 in the hell happened?

            Can you spell 'politicians? '

            While I absolutely agree with the overall thrust of the article, there are a couple of fairly sweeping generalizations and outright inaccuracies that need to be corrected.

            • There were many of the taxes listed in 1911. Cigarettes and alcohol were certainly, already being taxed by then. The Whiskey Rebellion in 1794 started over an alcohol tax imposed to help pay the National Debt incurred by fighting the Revolutionary War.
            • The National Deficits are nothing new. 98 years ago Woodrow Wilson had an average annual deficit of almost $17 Billion a year.
            • And let's face it, 100 years ago, there was no middle class. People were either extremely wealthy or extremely poor, similar to the way it is becoming today. That was why we went into the Great Depression (because of exactly the same type of financial shenanigans that just pushed us into the "Great Recession". That was why Banking Reforms (the ones that the wealthy have been getting repealed for the past 20 years) were put in place and that is why the New Deal was launched. To prevent exactly what just happened from happening again.
            • Another factor to consider is that the US population in 1911 was about 94 Million compared to the over 300 Million today. Triple the population is legitimately going to involve some additional governmental expenses.

            But the author can certainly be forgiven for waxing nostalgic for a Golden Age past that exists more in our imagination than in our history given that his overall point is on the money. 300 Million of us are allowing 545 individuals to be corrupted and used by special interests. We have become so complacent and uninformed that we accept the myths and vote against our own financial interests in order to protect the fortunes that we naively believe we will one day obtain by just working hard. The wealthy in this Country have become so adept at getting us to fight with one another over issues of race, region, and who can or can't say prayers where and when, that we were oblivious as they systematically repealed all the laws and regulations put in place to prevent another financial collapse in order to increase their profits, because unlike our 401ks, their assets were well shielded from the collapse.

            Until and unless we remove the money from politics there will never be an ability to prevent the type of corruption that appears to be inherent to it's nature on a National scale. Yes a Congressman can say "No" to a Million Dollars, but we all know that he/she isn't going to. We need to amend the Constitution to remove Corporate "personhood" and to eliminate money as an expression of "Free Speech". Let's be serious, the Founding Fathers would be horrified if they saw a contemporary "buying" an election. They considered any man that actively even campaigned for an Office to be unworthy of it. With 300 Million people to reach, campaigning may be legitimately necessary but their opinion of overly ambitious individuals is worth noting.

            * I included links to source materials but apparently something blocks URLs

            • 1 vote
            Reply#12 - Mon Jul 4, 2011 2:56 PM EDT
            The Working Stiff

            Very well said!

              #12.1 - Mon Jul 4, 2011 3:09 PM EDT
              Reply
              spiffie

              The article appears to contain some factual inaccuracies. Just off the top of my head:

              Liquor Tax
              Excise Taxes

              Liquor and excise taxes most certainly existed 100 years ago. In fact, one of the primary sources of income for the federal government 100 years ago was an excise tax on liquor. The Progressive coalition of 100 years ago saw three interrelated policies advancing their agenda: the income tax (to replace the excise tax on liquor to fund the federal government), the vote for women (to provide voters in support of the income tax and prohibition), and prohibition itself.

              And, of course, the article seems to ignore that excise taxes on liquor date back to the very founding of the country. The tax was the primary cause of the Whiskey Rebellion in the 1790s, while Washington himself was president.

              I don't plan to go through a thorough fisking of the article, but it's worth wondering why a former reporter--who presumably should know better (or at least have the faculties to research this stuff)--is worth listening to.

              • 3 votes
              Reply#13 - Mon Jul 4, 2011 3:08 PM EDT
              Becks72

              TryCommonSense-2821193 Thanks for your input. I always enjoy reading good opinions.

              http://consortiumnews.com/2011/06/28/how-greed-destroys-america/

                Reply#14 - Mon Jul 4, 2011 3:09 PM EDT
                Leave a Comment:
                You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                Newsvine Privacy Statement
                As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                FUN STUFF:
                • Leaderboard |
                • E-Mail Alerts |
                • Top of the Vine |
                • Newsvine Live |
                • Newsvine Archives |
                • The Greenhouse |
                COMPANY STUFF:
                • Code of Honor |
                • Company Info |
                • Contact Us |
                • Jobs |
                • User Agreement |
                • Privacy Policy |
                • About our ads
                LEGAL STUFF:
                • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com