White House Threatens Limbaugh Over Obama Criticism , page 19

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 05:32 PM

link

Originally posted by TheAftermath

Originally posted by Nightflyer28

I really don't see a problem with bringing back a requirement that if you have commentators discussing a controversial, complex issue, you should include someone to provide an opposing viewpoint, rather than just a steady stream of one point of view only.

If Limbaugh can't handle actual debate rather than spewing without opposition, that's hardly impressive. Any idiot can just babble on for a few hours.

How about the freedom of a privately owned radio station to air what they want?

Honestly, I don't give a good goddamn what the radio station owner wants.

I want the citizens of the United States to have both sides of the important issues, so they can weigh both sides' arguments and information, and make informed, educated decisions on issues that will determine the direction the country goes. And surprise, I don't care if the conservative ends up with a better argument than the liberal, so long as both sides are represented. And if the station owner doesn't like it, tough titty.

Because the needs of the people of this country as a whole should supersede the politics of one guy with a station and an agenda. That's why there are laws about how many stations in one area one guy can own - to prevent him from having a monopoly on the dissemination of ideas.

There's a word for countries in which only one side's point of view gets airplay.... hmmmm.... what was that word.... Well, if I can't think of it, I'm sure you can...

The basic point is, people in a free country are able to influence their reps with votes, with input, etc.

They make their decisions largely according to what they feel will be best for themselves, their families, and the country as a whole (I would hope!).

If people are well-informed about the issues facing them and their reps, they can make decisions based on the facts, and odds are, more often than not those decisions will be good ones.

If they are misinformed on the issues, either through their own lack of effort/interest, or the active efforts of others pushing claims, couched in pleasant terms or scary ones, depending on the intent, people will still make those decisions based on what they believe is best.

The thing is, you've probably heard the old computer saying, "Garbage in, garbage out." Well, it applies to people as well. If you're being misinformed, deceived about an issue, and what you're being told gives you the impression that deciding this or that will benefit you, there's a good chance it won't. It will only benefit those pushing the agenda.

Now, you may believe that your side is the right side, but if you're only getting one side of the issues, how do you know? You don't. And that's what I'm talking about.

Wanting to hear someone tell you, "Yes, you're right, this is good, see, you agree with me, so I'm right" is nice, but if you're wrong, and the only people you ever hear are wrong or lying, then you're pretty much screwed, get me?

Jefferson, clever guy he was, wrote a few things that still hold true.

"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."

"Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government"

"Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate for a moment to prefer the latter."

Sensing a trend here?

He's talking about the importance of a well-informed people to a free country. Now, what do you think a misinformed people are needed for? Because I'm pretty sure it's not a free country.

Nightflyer28

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 05:38 PM

link

Originally posted by earlywatcher
reply to post by TheAftermath

fox news really does present both sides.

Interesting theory. No basis in reality, but interesting theory.

Suddenly, I'm hearing O'Reilly ranting "Cut his mike! Cut his mike!" in the back of my mind for some reason....

i know the fairness doctrine only addresses radio, but the entire mainstream media plus public television and NPR is distinctly liberal. they present the liberal viewpoint as the one and only correct view.

If that's the case, then I would think you would welcome the opportunity to have a greater opportunity for conservative voices to be heard. Which the Fairness Doctrine would provide.

Nightflyer28

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 05:51 PM

link

Originally posted by earlywatcher

Originally posted by kinda kurious
Beck,for one, airs until cancelled on FOX NEWS NETWORK. See any difference?

Limbaugh for one claims to be the mouthpiece for Republicans and attends the party's functions and conventions.

I not aware that Stewart nor Colbert attend any. They are satirists. The main difference I can see is that 2 incite laughter and 2 incite hate.

stewart and colbert do mostly political commentary. yes they call it satire but the majority of their talk about bush and palin is ridicule. obama is never ridiculed.

Wanna bet? Try watching it a bit more often. Trust me, they have fun with him when there's material for it - already done it several times.

it might be comedy central but they are deadly serious in their agenda. i've long been fans of stewart and colbert but find the endless ridicule of palin ridiculous.

Like I said, when the material's there....

They found their audience and play to it. they are not news anchors. don't pretend to be.

Naturally. An anchor is supposed to present the facts, not opinion, even on Fox. And usually they stick to the facts. Limbaugh and Beck are propaganda artists - they wouldn't last two minutes as news anchors.

Jezus

posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 01:47 PM

link

Originally posted by Nightflyer28
Beck and Limberger are propaganda artists. They're not there to joke about current events; they're there to push a political agenda.

Main stream media = propaganda

The news is a commercial.

orangetom1999

posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 12:27 PM

link

reply to post by Nightflyer28

Beck and Limberger are propaganda artists. They're not there to joke about current events; they're there to push a political agenda.

Not very deep or inciteful Nightflyer. I can remember Walter Cronkite in an interview stating he was not a news anchor but a opinion maker.

Also for those who cannot think this far...some programs, particularly on the left use a type of humor called satire. It is actually pushing a political agenda.

Please practice more before posting such. Some peoples out here know some history and remember events in the past.

The main problem with the left is that they count on others easily getting emotional and becoming train wrecks on the standard issue claims. When you know some past events or history this becomes difficult to accomplish.

It actually gets wolfie when one sees and sufficientlyrecognizes the pattern. What thinking people do is recognize this and begin voting with thier remote controllers.

They are already doing this with the current administration...which is also causing them to look closer at the whole media shilling for this administration. This is a type of ...the King has on no clothes..the king is naked. Well...the media is in danger of becoming naked by association.

Even People ordinarily on the left side of things are begining to see this and vote with thier remote controllers.

Hope this helps you and some of the readers out there to think this through.

If they are speaking out against Rush Limbaugh...it is indicative of how desperate they actually are to control the media and by this the publiics view of events. To rig the show and the losers here will be the very public they claim to be serving.

Thanks,
Orangetom

kinda kurious

posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link

Originally posted by orangetom1999
Also for those who cannot think this far...some programs, particularly on the left use a type of humor called satire. It is actually pushing a political agenda.

Perhaps "Conservatives" have no sense of humor. So do you think Comedy Central is a "Left wing" media empire? Hardly. I suppose the "Right" prefer a more open direct approach to spew misinformation?

Apparently since "Consersatives" seem to have a lock on values, patriotism and decency humor is all we "Libs" have left.

The 1/2 Hour News Hour: FOX News Cancels Satire Series

Comedy news for the right-wing? Considering the success of Comedy Central’s political satire shows, it seemed like an interesting idea. Apparently not enough viewers agreed.

tvseriesfinale.com...

Some people can't take a joke, others die laughing.

[edit on 22-8-2009 by kinda kurious]

earlywatcher

posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link

Originally posted by kinda kurious

Perhaps "Conservatives" have no sense of humor. So do you think Comedy Central is a "Left wing" media empire? Hardly. I suppose the "Right" prefer a more open direct approach to spew misinformation?

Apparently since "Consersatives" seem to have a lock on values, patriotism and decency humor is all we "Libs" have left.

liberals do take great pride in using satire, which is why daily show and colbert report are so successful and funny. but when the ridicule and scorn is directed primarily in one direction, it's an agenda. They endlessly ridiculed bush, and it was often quite funny. but instead of ridiculing the current president they go after conservative political pundits, which is just plain silly and not nearly as funny.

there are plenty of funny things about obama and his antics. if they really aren't trying to hurt anybody with their satire, why not direct it at obama and family? they still harp on bush and especially cheney some, though nobody cares now, and they certainly ridicule palin. she's nobody in particular.

are liberals really only capable of hurtful humor/satire like kurious says? it it the appeal of hurting if at all possible that makes it so inviting?

[edit on 22-8-2009 by earlywatcher]

kinda kurious

posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link

Originally posted by earlywatcher
are liberals really only capable of hurtful humor/satire like kurios says? it it the appeal of hurting if at all possible that makes it so inviting?

Scuse me? Where did I use the word "hurtful?"

Show me and I'll gladly refrain from posting in this thread again.

Kindly retract your misquote or button it.

Your choice.

earlywatcher

posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 03:10 PM
link

reply to post by kinda kurious

hurtful was my interpretation of what the purpose of satire tends to be.

definition

1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn
2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly

merriam webster dictionary

I realize that many people believe this to be goodnatured ribbing, as in the celebrity roasts that are so popular on comedy cental. apparently those celebrities feel honored and appreciated by the ridicule by friends and peers, but i don't for a minute think that's the intention of daily show or colbert report towards conservatives. do you?

do you really believe that the satire directed toward conservatives on those two shows is intended to do anything but discredit them? do you think it affectionate or appreciative? maybe you don't like the word hurtful because it's a little too straightforward. You call it funny instead but why wouldn't it still be funny if it were directed at obama or liberal commentators?

kinda kurious

posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 05:33 PM
link

Originally posted by earlywatcher
reply to post by kinda kurious

hurtful was my interpretation of what the purpose of satire tends to be.

definition

1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn
2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly

merriam webster dictionary

...maybe you don't like the word hurtful because it's a little too straightforward. You call it funny instead...

First you misquote me without retraction, then you provide a definition for a word I did not use.
You, used the word, not I.

Originally posted by earlywatcher
liberals do take great pride in using satire...

But I'll play along. I am quite familiar with the difference between 'hurtful' and 'funny.'

To prove it, I will use both in a satirical sentence.

It would be 'hurtful' to me to slip and fall on a banana peel.

It would be 'funny' to me to watch you slip and fall on a banana peel.

See, I get it.

[edit on 22-8-2009 by kinda kurious]

earlywatcher

posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link

Originally posted by kinda kurious
humor is all we "Libs" have left.

this is what you said, and the type of humor being discussed was satire.

and to make myself perfectly clear, i certainly don't want you to stop posting on this thread. You keep it going! although i find some of your statements quite irritating, this place would be no fun if everybody agreed on things.

orangetom1999

posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link

reply to post by kinda kurious

Kinda Kurious,

I don't watch Comedy Central so I have no idea of what you are speaking.

as to this..

Perhaps "Conservatives" have no sense of humor.

I think you mean to say or state that "Conservatives" do not have the sense of humor or entitlement as have the left.

and this

Apparently since "Conservatives" seem to have a lock on values, patriotism and decency humor is all we "Libs" have left.

Such "Victimization" even in satire does not strengthen your position..nor does the emotional entitlement which accompanies such a technique.

I am going to throw this one at you for your consideration concerning the discipline or knowledge of etymology.

Amuse...Amusement.

A... without

Muse...thinking

Without thinking ....Amuse or Amusement.

There are people out here who though they have a sense of humor they do not automatically find humor in what most people find....amusing.

These people need to be mused...not amused.

Amusement is something or even a religious belief system fed to people to prevent them from thinking..... a lifestyle or religious belief which prevents them from thinking or musing.

Just thought you would enjoy knowing this about how some people think...or muse.

If not you .than perhaps some of the other readers will understand, comprehend this and muse on it in light of what so often happens around them daily.

early watcher,

I tend to agree with your position and I do know it is an agenda. I is very effective in what it does among people who cannot think outside the box and are easily susceptible to the lure or allure of humor. They can easily be lead to believe this stuff is an accurate representation of conditions.

are liberals really only capable of hurtful humor/satire like kurious says? it it the appeal of hurting if at all possible that makes it so inviting?

What it is to me is a method of self justification through humor or satire. Establishing the moral high ground through humor....entitlement.

Kinda Kurious,

humor is all we "Libs" have left.

Your humor is slipping!!

Thanks,
Orangetom

kinda kurious

posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 10:28 AM
link

reply to post by orangetom1999

Thanks for dropping that little nugget into the litter box. I am a wordsmith and was
genuinely interested by it.

However, it seems you have borrowed a technique from Earlywatcher (no wonder you are buds) he too enjoys schooling me on words I did not use. Thereby "putting words in my mouth."

Upon reviewing my posts I conclude I never used the term "amused." But no worries, if you'd kindly stand by I can toss out my big fat dictionary.

Next time, I suggest you employ the jaws of life before you attempt to interject units of language into my pie hole.

On Topic if you don't mind:

The date of OP was 08/07/09. No action has been taken by Whitehouse against Mr. Limbaugh as he continues his useless banter and blabbering.

This thread and the allegation within it's title seems moot.

[edit on 23-8-2009 by kinda kurious]

orangetom1999

posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link

reply to post by kinda kurious

LOL LOL LOL...humor here...in case you missed it. Is your humor ..as part of all the left has ...leaving you??

Zooooooooooooooooommmmmmm!!!!

You mean to say ..you dont find all this "Amusing??"

No you did not use the word Amuse...Amusing...Amusement. I did however use the word Amuse...Amusing...Amusememt.

Dont go off the deep end on us here...We want you to keep posting here on ATS/BTS. We want to see if you can take what you are wont to dish out...in case that escapes you. One needn't be a wordsmith to know this.

The point here is to see if all you really have left is a sense of humor as "YOU" Succinctly stated....even in satire....ie..amuse...amusement et al.

Stay on point here Kinda Kurious....only the conservatives can be "dead serious" Humor is all the libs have. That is exactly why "victimization works so well for them as does entitlement politics.

Your dead seriousness is misplaced here...if you are not careful you will become a conservative. Where is your humor??

LOL LOL ...

Thanks for the lesson in wordsmanship. You might want to begin delving into Occult Politics.

Thanks,
Orangetom

[edit on 23-8-2009 by orangetom1999]

kinda kurious

posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link

reply to post by orangetom1999

Despite my prior effort to remain On Topic, it is plain to see the you'd rather cast dispersions on me and make false assumptions regarding my character. I will simply spare you further fodder as this dialogue has become no longer dulcet.
A simulacrum to serious discussion.

So unless the PTB coax Janet Reno out of her dirt nap and they pull a Waco on the obese human bagpipe known as Rush Limbaugh, I'll cease further posting in this thread. (Insert loud applause)

But not without a personal story as you seem so infatuated by my musings.

I used to fish frequently and caught quite many which I ate. Despite the succulent fresh taste seasoned by the pride of my fishing prowess, I frequently was left to wonder about the ones that got away. How their sweet and delicious flakey goodness would fulfill me. But alas, I felt deprived as I longed to conquer that which I could not savor.

On topic: Mr. Limbaugh was NOT threatened by the Whitehouse and you really don't have to wait an hour after you've eaten to go swimming.

And with that, I am swimming away.

[edit on 23-8-2009 by kinda kurious]

earlywatcher

posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link

reply to post by orangetom1999

I think we freaked out kinda kurious by wanting him to keep posting. he can't take that kind of encouragement so had to turn it into The Reason For Leaving.

I never got the feeling that the white house intended to actually take action against rush or fox news. it seems to me the whole point is the actual pot shots. the labeling of them as irresponsible, uncooperative, negative, and from there trying to sabotage the obama presidency. there is no justification for legal action, only the excuse for criticism and thereby justification for spending mucho bucks on PR firms to spread good feelings about obama, the democrats, and the as yet undefined health plan obama is trying to pass.

Mak Manto

posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 10:40 PM
link

Woah, woah, woah.

Guess what? If Limbaugh, Coulter, Fox News, and the rest of the conservatives want to call Obama and his administration names, fine by me.

First off, referring him to Hitler and such?

Is this the tactics of the GOP? Name calling? If you're going to put the guy down, do so because you disagree with his policy views and the way he's leading, but name calling?

Second off, if they're going to call him names and attack him, he has all the right to attack back.

Once again, the White House is not threatening him. They're not going to stop him from talking on his show, are they? No, they're not.

orangetom1999

posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 11:46 PM
link

reply to post by earlywatcher

No I dont think we freaked out Kinda Kurious although I do want them to post. I most certainly dont feel they should quit on account of us or anyone else.

I never got the feeling that the white house intended to actually take action against rush or fox news.

They would look sillier than they currently do if they did take action against Rush Limbaugh. However..the House and Senate will most certainly carry the water for the White House as will the rest of the political shills...the media.

If the media is not careful here...the public will begin to see them for what they really are. Shills...carrying the water for political parties not worthy of the public confidence. Both parties. And the media will play the public for thier respective parties.

I like to listen to Rush on occasion. What interests me mostly are his predictions. There are certain topics Rush will just not cover while he plays the Republican/Democrat card. I find this very tiring as I dont have much faith in the Republicans nor the Democrats both. I think both partys will take the public for a ride if given the chance...and on the public purse as well.

The character I really dislike is this guy Hannity. For some reason his style grates on my nerves. I never did care for him. Glad I have a remote when he comes on the television.

As to labeling ...this too is a fingerprint I have noticed and spent alot of time musing upon it.

Labeling is to me mob mentality based on emotional stroking of the public for a predetermined result. It is a control function by a predator preying on peoples emotions. Particularly people without mature emotions...unable to think outside the box. It is a form of what I call "Public Masterbation."

They are emotionally jerking the unawares public off for a gauranteed reaction.Both parties will do this but it is a constant bailiwick of the Left and the left leaning media. The emotional outrage...followed by emotional reaction..followed by mob mentality and followed by entitlement beliefs...all the way to a voting booth.

It is a way or manner of grooming controllable, predictable, malliable, gauranteed voters who are not emotionally mature....therefore easily controlled. It is a type of predatory behavior or method to get control.
It easily deceives people like this into thinking they have by default ..the moral high ground in any and everything....by emotional conditioning.

In short ..it grooms controlled Drama Queens...right up to the voting booth.

It got so bad and so stupid..that this House Speaker ....herself..Pelosi..could not break away from the emotional conditioning long enough to realize that the Nazi symbols at one of the rallys were describing herself and her party. She was so dumb and brainwashed by her parties own techniques that she lost the message. Astonishing!! She actually thought she had the moral high ground that day. It went right over her head. She had drank of her own Kool Aid.

Oh..and for both you and Mak Manto..concerning the word Hitler. Both parties will use or misuse this word to put the public on a string. I know immediately when I hear the word "HITLER" that I am automatically by default supposed to stop thinking and join the MOB on an emotional jerk off session. To agree with whatever nonsense or bandwagon they need the mob to join.

Both republicans and democrats will use this template or fingerprint. I have seen it many many many times and it too gets very tiring. Hitler is just another label to stop people from thinking for themselves....and let the politicians and media do all of our thinking for us....by emotional reaction. I have heard Rush Limbaugh use this word and it gets tiring as well. Same template.

I will do my own thinking for myself..thank you.

OH...speaking of emotional reaction and drama.....here..by Kinda Kurious..

So unless the PTB coax Janet Reno out of her dirt nap and they pull a Waco on the obese human bagpipe known as Rush Limbaugh, I'll cease further posting in this thread. (Insert loud applause)

Is this maturity or emotional drama? No matter how well the words are used. Wordsmith et al. Is it labeling??

OH..and while I am at it...is this also leadership..when politicians and even a President or his cabinet begin to go down this type of road??

Does anyone even know that word anymore in Politics....Leadership??
Or has it been replaced with DRAMA???

Interested to know what you think here about this quote?

Gotta go now.

Thanks to all for thier posts,
Orangetom

[edit on 23-8-2009 by orangetom1999]

earlywatcher

posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 03:16 AM
link

reply to post by orangetom1999

agree heartily that both parties equally try to lead us down the primrose path to doom. lie and call names whenever it suits, and phrase it in ways the public will buy in. tedious.

i don't happen to listen to talk radio so don't listen to rush or any of the others, but i do watch Fox News for some things. Glenn Beck does some interesting reports, has some amazing guests. I still remember the day he had the head of the US communist party, and viewers crashed their website so guest said he'd get his tech guy on it. Beck asked if his tech guy was union, and the communist said no, that his was not a union shop. Beck pantomimed shock, that the communist party would not stand behind labor unions. it was pretty funny. i find bill o'reilly interesting. don't always agree with him but he always has guests to support both sides of any issue he is discussing. biggest gripe about bill is that he has bent over backwards to defend obama ever since obama did an interview with him. finally now he is getting a bit critical but he's been very solicitous. have to agree with you on hannity. i used to try to watch sometimes when it was hannity & colmes but just couldn't do it, and have no better luck now that he's on his own. i wonder if he really will run for president in 2012. if he does, any chance he has will be because he has been vilified by the left.

the words hitler and nazi are hot flash words. people use then to get a rise out of listeners. there is no other conceivable reason because once one of those words is uttered reason is gone with the wind. it's all about accusations. the problem is, obama does have some alarming policies, but there is no politically correct way to discuss them. Anything said is called racist or domestic terrorism or wanting the president to fail. but i really don't remember any white house before singling out one channel to complain about because it questions his policies. I'm not saying it's never happened, but i was not aware of it. the contrast with all the other stations presenting things in the most positive possible light is extraordinary. the very words used and the construction of the story puts the spin on.

i am very concerned about this entitlement mentality the libs have but also the negativity. the remarks are often biting. they truly believe that only they care about other people, that their approach is the only compassionate one. it is amazing to me.
i have many friends who believe this, and from there they buy into the party line. one friend told me the other day that the reason we have such a big deficit is because of the reagen tax cuts, that the country just can't afford for the rich to pay so little in taxes. no mention of spending. just the REAGEN tax cuts. where did that whole belief come from? that if anyone earns a lot, they shouldn't keep it but give it to the government to distribute.

[edit on 24-8-2009 by earlywatcher]

orangetom1999

posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 10:41 AM
link

reply to post by earlywatcher

Wow Earlywatcher,

My thanks for taking the time with such a detailed post.

When Hannity was on along with Colmes I actually prefered the style of Colmes. Not that I agreed with the politics of Alan Colmes ...I just found him to be more of a gentleman in his conduct than Hannity. I can always agree with general civility than with Wildlife ....which is often how I find Hannity.
If Hannity runs for President ..I will not be voting for him.

Very interesting and telling about the Communist party guest.

I too like O riley...for his style. I have not watched him much at all since the election so I dont know about his positions on Obama.

I had not thought about it in the terms you use to describe HITLER.

Hot Flash Words.

Very appropriate...I will borrow that expression...Thank You.

I do not like what I call Drama Queens around me. I live and work in a diciplined structure. When I leave work I do not step into a phone booth and put on my Drama Queen costume and become emotional wildlife.
I also dont appreciate anyone else trying to put me on that very string. I will cut the chords qucikly when I detect someone trying to do this. I spot it quickly on ATS as well.

So many people seem to think thier emotional jag is what is right and correct. That it is logical and reasonable. The high moral ground.

No thanks..I will think it through for myself.

i am very concerned about this entitlement mentality the libs have but also the negativity. the remaks are often biting. they truly believe that only they care about other people, that their approach is the only compassionate one. it is amazing to me.

agree here. What I have noticed both Republican and Democrat...is that they are very compassionate with other peoples time and moneys.
It is very noticable with this administration....though previous administrations have done the same but not to this extent on the public purse.

I do not agree with entitlement mentality. Especially entitlement of other peoples goods and services/labor. The negativity is the immature reaction to someone who does not support thier entitlement relgion of removing other peoples property/labor by which to be compassionate.

What you learn is that if many of these people had to give up alot of thier own labor/goods...they would not be so compasssionate...no matter what political party.

If they care for people as advertised they would not be so biting. They tell on themselves in this.

as to this here...seroiusly think this through...seriously and deeply...

i have many freinds who believe this, and from there they buy into the party line. one friend told me the other day that the reason we have such a big deficit is because of the reagen tax cuts, that the country just can't afford for the rich to pay so little in taxes. no mention of spending. just the REAGEN tax cuts. where did that whole belief come from? that if anyone earns a lot, they shouldn't keep it but give it to the government to distribute.

This is one of the biggest hoaxes ever perpetrated by both Democrats and Republicans..that one is a taxpayer and should pay for government.

None of us pay for government when the government spends far more than they take in in taxes. What a hoax someone has taught us.

It should be obvious to the thinking by now that the government taking tax moneys from us ..does not pay for our government. Not possible.

The government can get all the moneys they want and need by deficit spending...ie..borrowing on the public purse.

The purpose of the income tax is threefold.

1. To deceive the public into thinking they are tax payers.

2. To limit the publics abiliity to compete in the marketplace against a govenment with an unquenchable thirst for easy theft by increading the money supply..ie..deficit spending.

Removing by taxes..your ability to spend in the economy allows the government by deficit to get the goods and services before we do. We are the competition for the government in the economy we build and support.
They need to find a way to limit us from outspending them ...and getting the goods and services first..for our needs. The income tax does exactly this function for government by limiting us first.

3. The income tax ..assigns a value to the phoney paper moneys...that it would not be able to hold without our numbers reduction. Stop the income tax and the money will go to its real value almost overnight...ZERO.
This should be obvious by what is happening with more and more deficit spending..loss or weakening of the capital base..weakened purchasing power of the dollar due to deficit spending..the creation of new moneys ..or M Factor. It will go to ZERO anyways if they dont stop deficit moneys creation. Do you forsee anytime in the future that the government will curb its appetite for easy moneys?? Repubican or Democrat?? I most certainly dont. I have known this for over 20 years now and Have yet to see a reduction in deficit spending. It is easily predictable by the very nature of this BEAST.

Sooner or later ..they are going to have to radically increase the Income tax to hide the amount of moneys they are creating out of thin air. It is unavoidable...or the economy will totally bust...it will go to Zero eventually in a fiat unbacked money system. It is just a matter of when.

The government also does one other very desctructive thing by the income tax. They subsidize certain groups or buisnesses by tax subsidies or supports. This violates the principles of free market economics on the basis of tax supports..not wether a procuct is useful and needed by the public at a certain market determined price. It rigs the marketplace.

Thanks,
Orangetom

[edit on 24-8-2009 by orangetom1999]