This sums up this country for me
 

DIVORCE AGREEMENT


THIS IS SO INCREDIBLY WELL PUT AND I CAN HARDLY BELIEVE IT'S BY A YOUNG PERSON, A STUDENT!!! WHATEVER HE RUNS FOR, I'LL VOTE FOR HIM.


Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al: We have stuck together since the late 1950's for the sake of the kids, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has clearly run its course.



Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right for us all, so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.



Here is a our separation agreement:


--Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a similar portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.



--We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them.


--You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU.
--Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military.


--We'll take the nasty, smelly oil industry and the coal mines, and you can go with wind, solar and biodiesel.


--You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell. You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them.



--We'll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street.


--You can have your beloved lifelong welfare dwellers, food stamps, homeless, homeboys, hippies, druggies and illegal aliens.


--We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks.


--We'll keep Bill O?Reilly, and Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood .


--You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us.


--You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security.


--We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.


--You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, political correctness and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N. but we will no longer be paying the bill.


--We'll keep the SUV's, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Volt and Leaf you can find.


--You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors.


--We'll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right.
--We'll keep "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" and "The National Anthem."


--I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute "Imagine", "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing", "Kum Ba Ya" or "We Are the World".


--We'll practice trickle-down economics and you can continue to give trickle up poverty your best shot.



--Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag.


Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like-minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you might think about which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.



Sincerely,


John J. Wall


Law Student and an American


P.S. Also, please take Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Martin & Charlie Sheen, Barbara Streisand, & ( Hanoi ) Jane Fonda with you.



P.S.S. And you won't have to press 1 for English when you call our country.


Forward This Every Time You Get It ! Let's Keep This Going, Maybe Some Of It Will Start Sinking In!!

when you are competing in the arena of Bread and Circus...I think that is the point...noone seems to mind lies and false promises if they are made by talented liars and cult personalities....the next 2 and 4 years will be spent expanding and reinforcing the welfare state and entitlement mentality....republicans will always be portrayed as those who will take away the goodies if elected...it's a no win...as in Eurpoe we will end up with parties at election time arguing over who is better equipped to manage the collapsing welfare state, the only way to win at this point, is to simply promise more...it's not the parties, it's not the system...it's the people:)

This student is well beyond his years in wisdom and his Professors could
learn from him. :hihi:

Exactly. It is that Spencist trajectory/vector thing in which we are trapped. I might go a little easier on the people, though. Most are, always have been, and will always be, followers. Most are beneficiaries of or prey to systems of government created by leaders or masterminds. And most are informed by the education and media created by those leaders and delivered through those systems. That is the reason why most systems eventually fail. Most rigidly manage top down in a world of never ending change. There will always be social and natural wars for which they have no micromanaged answer. And the more they micromanage, the more rigid, intractable, they become-- and the less they can successfully respond to evolutionary forces. Socialist systems are symbiotic relationships between top-down powerful, to all powerful, central managers and their dependent "people."

Market systems create a "spontaneous order" among "the people." And the markets and people agree to various limited regulations (government) to make the spontaneous system more orderly.

Most people in either type of system "follow" the order created by leaders. The difference lying in how governance and direction is dispersed. Either a top-down one-directional (collectivist) administration or a bottom-up multi-directional (individualistic) system of self-governance.

The Democrat Party has transformed a once dispersed bottom-up market driven system to a top-down central one which depends on the socialistic means to power and its mainainance that you describe. It exists by distributing "needs" and maintains that existence by promising more in the following elections. It has essentially co-opted the public and higher educational systems and most of the major media which all inform the people. In that it has not figured a way to create the wealth that it distributes, it still relies on a market to do so. But it must control the market to the extent that it distributes the created wealth. The more it distributes, the more the market shrinks. And the greater the amount of centrally distributed wealth that is required, either the more the market must shrink or the more the government must borrow or inflate. And the more it gets in debt, the more onerous is its requirement to distribute. It is as much a slave to the "people" as the people are to it. This "mega trend" process is irreversible, no do-over as Spence would say, if this top-down system of government is to survive.

It doesn't have to survive. And it won't. What eventually takes its place is a question we might ponder. Or not. It will eventually happen either way. But we might make the eventual change less destructive if we do think about it, rationally and with respect to past experience. My personal suggestion, no surprise, would be to reinstitute governance on the lines of The Constitution. It is a framework for a fluid system that is open to necessary and evolutionary change but still maintains the dispersed power to create that change and maintain optimal individual freedom and "unalienable rights."

It is telling that those who argue with this and with well thought out and lengthy posts such as yours, respond with quips and one-liners which usually are shallow or make little sense. Or intentionally try to ridicule or provoke rather than discuss.

Raider Ronnie,

It must suck to hate your country so much that you'd want to break it in 2. I wonder how the red states will pay their bills w/o the blue states to subsidize them.

[QUOTE=PaulS;969237]Raider Ronnie,

It must suck to hate your country so much that you'd want to break it in 2. I wonder how the red states will pay their bills w/o the blue states to subsidize them.

QUOTE]

Paul, the red states own most of the oil, natural gas, and farmland. They also own 90% of the trade with south america and most of the industry in the US. They'd do just fine. perhaps blue states could add a tarrif on hollywood exports?

The subsidies you reference dont come from blue states, they come from all states and its not just blue paying into the pot. If we didnt have all these federal programs and taxes, maybe there wouldnt be a need for subsidies?

Hey Paul
I've got family that have fought and died in every war this country has fought going back to ww2 and up to this current war we been fighting.
You call Obama's Chicago mafia style of running this country patriotic with soldiers votes not being counted , this cover up in Bengazi 1st throwing Hillary under the bus now this general sex scandal who just do happens to have damaging testimony soon coming !








Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Red states get more back from the fed. then they put in, Blue states get back less. Isn't there a petition being circulated to allow Texas to cede from the US?

As I said, it must suck to hate your country so much that you would actually consider ceding. 65,000 Texans have already signed - (great Americans!!). Perry has even voiced similiar thoughts in the past.

[QUOTE=RIJIMMY;969248]Good point. And subsidies not only create their own need, they are a method of controlling. They are not entirely about nice-nice.

I didn't miss anything. Sounds like conjecture on your part.

Wouldn't that be a good riddance for the blue states? Get those Texas leaches off the welfare rolls? But the blues wouldn't let that happen. Probly send in the troops like the strong parents they are and hush-hush the spoiled little munchkins who don't really know what's good for them. Mommy and daddy and nanny know what's good, and how to take care of even the wayward children.

I love this country but question it's leadership and the people who try to take out more than they put in............
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, it is conjecture on my part, I don't pretend to know what is precisely on your mind. That's why I said that I GUESS you missed the part about who would get what (which would reasonbly allow the red states to do without subsidies), and the part that went "Our two ideological sides of America cannot ever agree on what is right for us all, so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconciliable differences and go our own way."

I didn't see any "hate" there and "conjectured" that maybe you missed that part. Apparently, I was wrong. You missed nothing and came to the conclusion that it was about hate. I apologize for my misconception.

Paul, its simple. I dont have unconditional love for this country. If the things I love go away, then why bother?
You're red vs blue is so misinformed. its about income tax - fed revenue generated. not revenue generated in Blue vs red, Most blue states make $$ of work/labor done in red states. to the original email. imagine if we did split blue to red? Blue states would be out of energy and food in a week if red states didnt trade with you.

Still sounds like hate to me, no matter how it was written. I love my country and would not want anyone leaving just b/c they have different politics. Apparently, ronnie and john Wall feel differently.

I know what it is - it is tax revenue vs. gov. expenditures.

so lets look at this.

PaulS starts his own company. He is sucessful has annual revenues of 1-2M, he employs 10 people. has 2 wonderful kids, buys a big house, buys a lake house, buys a few boats. he works hard and rewards himself. He pays his share of taxes his whole life.
PaulS at 70 yrs old passes away, shortly after his beautiful wife also passes.
His children are 35 and 40 yrs old, they are on their own, own careers, own families. They inherit their parents estate valued at 5 million.
In comes the US government - 55% or 2,750,000 is ours - you have 9 months to pay us. Knock, knock - its the state - you owe us 10% estate tax - you have 9 months to pay.
Assets are sold, the lake house, the boats, the cars, etc. legal fees to dispose of the estate stack up. Pauls childnre watch their parents lives be sold off in chunks, everythign they dreamed sold to pay Uncle Sam. - In the end the grand life savings of PaulS equates to about 1.5M to his family, his grandkids, his relatives, charities. The government seized all his other assets.
What a great country!
Thats not politics Paul, this is reality. That is robbery. I wont stand for it.

Nice story but trusts and life insur. would have taken care of much of the tax issue. Highlights the issue of estate planning (of which I'm certainly not an expert).

However, while you say you won't stand for it, your not leaving the country or I can't recall and doubt you advocating ceding from it. You might complain and try to do something about it - which is your right and prob. your responsibility in a democracy.

BullShat - I know this stuff - estate planning wont protect against that. Dont you think the government would take care of that?

My responsibility Paul? Im outnumbered! I CANT change that! thats what this thread is all about!
Did you notice you didnt even argue whether its right or wrong? You dont care if the governent ROBS people of their life.

Estate planning could have certainly taken care of much of the burden. That is what life insur. is for.

I don't think it is robbery - you do. We live in a democracy. If the majority don't think it is robbery, it will stay the way.

Keep it Civil gentlemen

life insurance? So PaulS in that story should have had life insurance to offset the government stealing his $? WTF!

an oh, by the way -


Section 2042 of the Internal Revenue Code states that the value of life insurance proceeds insuring your life are included in your gross estate if the proceeds are payable: (1) to your estate, either directly or indirectly; or (2) to named beneficiaries, if you possessed any incidents of ownership (we'll discuss this more below) in the policy at the time of your death

You dont think its robbery the government seizes 55% of your assets when you die? Wow! What an incentive to work hard and provide for your family.

the majority paul dont give a F becuase they wont make that mych money and could care less if the f the rich. thats EXACLTY whats happening now with your O buddy - you know, the millionaires who make 250K a year! THOSE PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH VOTES TO GET OUT OF THE TAX BURDEN THE REST OF THE COUNRTY IMPOSES ON THEM!!

if the majority are not being robbed, why should they care?

Oh, Its Robbery....55% is rediculous

thats just fed, does not include state
but hey, its only the top 1%, who cares!

Unfortunately it is in fact everybody. The top 1% generally Have tax shelters and living trusts etc. set up to avoid these estate taxes. The actual estate owner technically does not own the estate. In general all of the physical holdings are part of a corporate trust. Therefore the only thing subject to estate taxes are liquid assets.

The top 1% pay the bare minimum of taxes to avoid government Inquiry. Obama and his cronies know this. Making promises of increasing taxes on the top 1% earners is simply pandering to people who Do not understand and will never have to understand. People are within the top 1% in earnings in the country for a reason. They know how to make money and they know how to keep it. Their annual income reported is just the tip of the iceberg
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i think you're way off
The top 1% pay 40% of all income taxes! Thats a real number.

Well, if you put it that way......

This has been brought up a few times before as if it means something. Perhaps it does. Supposedly, by those who bring it up, it means something like the red states are s#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g off of the blue states and need the Fed to redistribute the "more back" or they would not be able to survive. Ergo, they should quit complaining about state's rights and government redistribution and individual freedom and all that nonsense. It even implies more, that those in the red states are not as competent as those in the blue, that they are somehow backward and a drag on the country. It even implies that red states are the welfare queens that so many of their people rail against.

But that is, in my opion, a shallow, narrow, one-sided, false interpretation of the meaning. The "more back" is not some blank check. It is not a gift. Nor would the states collapse without it. On the whole, the states would do well enough if they could reverse the rates of taxation so that they could collect the federal rates and the fed was limited to the average state rates. Even more so if they didn't have to spend much of the "more back" as well as their own to fulfill central government mandates. If it were up to them to decide social policies as was intended, they could fit those policies to their fiscal realities and to their social values. And they would have to be more responsible to their citizens desires than a far-off and irresponsible government with pockets that exceeds it's income.

And most of that "more back" is given to individuals not to the states. The money may be spent by those individuals in the state or in other states or countries. More and more is spent on internet purchases. And money such as social security and medicare and welfare receipts are given to some who reside in states other than in which they earned those receipts. And that "more back" is a way to create dependency on the central government, especially for things that should be decided at state levels. It is as much coersion as it is beneficence.

The "more back" is a red herring that draws attention away from the direction of our system of government.

Agree however When compared to their actual wealth...... They make on average hundred and 25 times more money than we do the middle class. That is strictly taxable income. Other holdings which are not necessarily taxable. Add to their net worth. Is kind of what I was getting at.

Those holdings if the property of a trust. Are only taxed it turned into cash (Simply stated I realize) Or income is gained from them. In individual could own $100 million worth of property Through a trust. Then consider themselves an employee of the trust Getting an income from management fees etc. The property is rented at say $45 million a year. Your management employment fees somewhere in the neighborhood of $12.5 million a year. Taxes and insurance 25 million a year. Expenses etc. right down the line. The truck showed a profit of two $3 million a year. You take home for your management fees etc.$1 million a year. Your vehicle is taken care of by the trust. Your life insurance is guaranteed by the trust. There is 1 million ways to get paid without actually taking a check.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's true and makes one scratch their head when the Dems say they won't budge on resolving the so-called fiscal cliff unless the rich pay their "fair" share.

But I think there is something to what Jackbass is saying. Unless there is a way to remove the loopholes that are beneficial to the rich, raising the tax rate on their income will have no effect. 100% of the zero that is paid on loophole hidden income is still zero. The compromise the Repubs are proposing--keeping the rates the same but closing loopholes--makes more sense if the goal is raising government revenue. Lowering the upper rates with removal of loopholes would make even more sense. It would encourage the rich to pay the lower rates and would not have a negative effect on business.

I don't know if you guys have noticed but it's not the 1% any more..it's the 2% now...:uhuh:

Insight News

Demonstrators want to end Bush tax cuts for richest 2%, to protect working families
Monday, 12 November

A group of over forty Minnesotans representing the Americans for Tax Fairness coalition, and including representatives of SEIU, TakeAction Minnesota, Minnesotans for a Fair Economy, ISAIAH and CTUL, demonstrated in downtown Minneapolis this morning calling for an end to the Bush Tax Cuts and tax breaks for big corporations. The demonstration coincided with the first week of the congressional lame-duck session where a budget showdown looms.

Cliff Martin, a first-time voter and high school senior from Northfield, told the crowd that the time is now to make sure people are protected, not wealthy CEOs and corporations. "On Tuesday, I voted for a fair economy," he shouted. "It's time the richest who've benefitted the most over the past decade start paying their fair share." Martin supports a corporate tax reform plan that raises substantial revenue from those who have extracted billions from the American economy.

Those rallying marched on Nicollet Mall and through the skyway system, urging Congress to end tax cuts for the richest 2%, those that make more than $250,000 per year. To chants of "They never pay the taxes they owe. The money always goes to the CEO!" marchers headed into U.S. Bancorp's downtown headquarters, then over to Verizon and into Macy's department store.

if it doesn't belong to you and you take it or you empower someone else to take it against the will of the owner...it's robbery...you just have ways to justify it in your head and you don't care because it doesn't belong to you :uhuh:

I think the exemption this year is $5,000,000 so I think there is $0 tax in your example above. Also, the death benefit is not taxable to the beneficiary. The ownership that they are talking about in your example above is the ownership of the policy. So if the estate owns the policy, the estate will have to pay tax on the cash value of the policy. If the beneficiary (in this case the 2 kids) owns the policy, they don't have to pay taxes on the cash value when Paul dies. And if I'm correct on the exemption, the ins. will only increase the benefits to the heirs.

Why wouldn't I care - we're talking about taxes. I have to pay taxes like everyone else.

Just because the majority doesn't consider it robbery, doesn't mean it's not robbery. A majority doesn't, in and of itself, imply righteousness. I point you to days when the majority thought slavery was OK, or when a majority thought the Holocaust was OK.

If you take a poll of 6 robbers and 4 victims, and ask them if robbery should be OK, what result would you expectf?

Obama, and the media, have successfully fooled a majprity of voters that our economic problems are, in some meaningful way, due to the fcat that wealthy don't "pay their fair share".

Fine. I hope the GOP rolls over and lets this Mao-ist run wild with his lefty agenda. That way, when the inevitable collapse happens, no one will be able to claim that it wasn't caused by liberalism.

Pure, unchecked liberalism has worked so well in CT, why wouldn't we want to extrapolate that mess to the whole country? CT's economy is an absolute, unmitigated disaster. And it doesn't get any more purely liberal than here in my state, has been that way for a generation. No one sees a connection between those 2 things. Unbelievable.

I heard a woman on the radio this week. She was a liberal. She used to live in New York, but she couldn't afford the taxes and cost of living, so she moved to Florida, which has lower taxes and a much lower cost of living. She doesn't like how conservative Florida is, so she suppports liberalism in Florida. Liberalism forced her to move across the country, and now she wants to infest Florida with the same disease, and she sees nothing ironic or stupid with that.

You can't cure stupid.

Where in NY did she live? What did she do for a job? Did she move to Florida because of a job offer? Family?

Your stories are about as valid as the National Inquirer.

"Did she move to Florida because of a job offer? Family? "

Did you read my post? I specifically said that she moved to FL because the cost of living was too high in New York.

Sorry if I was going too fast for you.

actually we don't...we don't decide tax policy and most other issues by majority vote, the "majority" decides the election of representatives and local issues...we elect representatives who hash those other things out, supposedly in our interest...maybe you missed that part of civics class....if we decided tax policy etc. on a vote by vote basis and everyone actually voted and Americans actually paid their taxes directly rather than having them deducted or disguised in fees and the like I imagine things would be quite different...

you support taxes specifically targeting the incomes and property of others in order to increase funding for a government that is not only bloated and inefficient and operating well beyond what it was ever intended to but cannot seem to pass a budget and apparently has no intention of curbing growth and scope of it's already indebted programs....you don't care becasue in this case it likely doesn't affect you...it won't solve any problems but apparently makes you feel better


as for the majority deciding what is robbery and what isn't and majority rule....can we look at these exit polls: :)

National exit polls conducted on election day found 26 percent of voters wanted the law(Obamacare) expanded, 18 percent want it left as-is, 27 percent wanted to repeal some of the law and 25 percent wanted to repeal all of it.

can't help yourself, can you? :confused: