Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Conspiracy theories about Bilderberg etc are nutty...
Nope, just a couple pals with many billions who want low taxes, cheap labor, to mislead the chumps and to screw the environment and the country...There is no such conspiracy, dupe. But the New BS GOP certainly is bought off by big money a-holes.Hey nutjob....Tell us about BilderbergI gotta say dale. Your stuff shows up on the kooky meter.
Truth is stranger than fiction and I have to admit, had someone posted the things I have when I was still in the dark? I would have the same reaction so no offense is taken. I had people try and wake me up that things were not as they seemed but I was stuck in the left versus right paradigm...stuck in the matrix and I wasn't willing to budge. It was the revelations of Eric Snowden that the Patriot Act was written well in advance of 9/11 and the security apparatus for a spy grid was in place beforehand that shook me out of my complacency. When I realized that everything I believed in had been a lie...I suffered from depression to the point that I could not eat or sleep for a solid month. Fortunately I had a boss that knew what I was going through and he cut me all kinds of slack. He said it's a helluva thing to learn that everything you believed in was a lie but to hang in there and that he had my back. I got over it and I went from being depressed to being so fucking pissed that I became an information junkie. I gave my TV away which was hard as hell to do because I was so addicted to having that noise in the background that I couldn't fall asleep without it...then I realized that it was part of the problem and that it was nothing but a propaganda tool....they call it "program" for a reason.
So down the rabbit hole I went with a conviction and a desire for truth that burns even unto this day. I bought an I-Pod so I could download lectures and documentaries and listen to them at work while I repaired machines. I jot down notes so I can do the vetting of information when I get home. I have become an expert at finding real information that is out there readily available. I started sharing some of the information i have learned on other blog sites like the Yahoo news boards especially about the Federal Reserve only to find that my work would be deleted. I have had over 2,000 posts deleted by Yahoo for posting about the Fed so I know that I am hitting too close to the truth. All I can say to you is that you will need your own "Come to Jesus" understanding of how things really are and they are not what you think. I can only do what I can to try and wake people up as to what has been done to them. As someone that has spent so much time learning the things I have? It's so easy for me to see but I know it is hard for others. There were many that tried to wake me up but I shunned them....wish I could find them now and tell them that they were right. Good on ya......if you decide to take the red pill and want some direction, all you need to do is ask.
What is there to say about them? They are just another offshoot group of the CFR, Trilateral Commission and the Committee of 300 that decide which economies will be wrecked and which ones will be allowed to thrive, make long range plans just so long as it serves their globalist agenda. There was serious denial for a couple of decades that there was an actual meeting of the powerful elite...those that said there was.... were called "conspiracy theorists"...only to find out that they were right all along. George Carlin, a flaming liberal even did a routine about the Bilderburgers.........I guess he was a kook as well, no? Is it really that big of a conspiracy that the people that control all the wealth would get together and have a plan? Seriously, you are unbelievably naive....anyone that would take your fool-fueled rants to heart would need the IQ of a kitten......
Wow, Franco...sounds like you are accusing the neocon GOP of being involved in a conspiracy...but that can't be true because there is no such thing as conspiracies....right? Let me explain a few home truths to you....the demise of the middle class was deemed necessary by a think tank group that wrote the Iron Mountain Report that was finished in 1967 and that an exponential threat would have to be manufactured to keep a growing population in line and subservient to an authoritative power. Read the report yourself...you can find it on-line. It's pretty boring for the most part but it does have some chilling sections that have led us to where we are now. The Club of Rome, an offshoot of the U.N came into existence two years after this report and came out with their "Zero growth" plan in the early 70's and that is when the environmental movement took place. Look up the quotes of Maurice Strong, look up the 1992 Rio summit, Agenda 21 and the map that they proposed for the United States and then compare it to all the federal land "da gubermint" has claimed ownership of and tell me that they don't mirror each other....I know my shit....I live and breathe this stuff. I am an avid researcher and an expert at putting the pieces together. I would LOVE to get a politician into a debate on live TV...especially a president and lay all this out and watch them stutter and stammer. I would have all the documentation and quotes in paper form for their perusal.....they wouldn't touch this stuff in a live forum with a ten foot pole because they know they would be stone cold BUSTED.
If you like something and want it you should pay for it. It's not everyone else's job to provide you with the things you want.I like roads and cops and trains and airports- now falling apart here. Thanks idiot GOP.Haven't seen a single "fair" tax proposal that doesn't raise taxes on the working poor and cut taxes on the wealthyHe's parroting an obscure RW propaganda....What he's missing is that the elite ripping off the world are overwhelmingly RW/GOP.I gotta say dale. Your stuff shows up on the kooky meter.
Ever notice these "fair tax " threads always end up being about how you can further fuck over the poor and working stiffs .
There is no need for any type of tax...income, property or even consumption. USA.INC is sitting on TRILLIONS in wealth. Do some research into the Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports and get back to me...or STFU...I get tired of trying to school morons like you.
Ok. But how u gonna pay for stuff?
The fed gov collects taxes other than income taxes.
Also, what do you mean by "stuff", and why should I want to pay for it?
Stuff? Well just name. Astronauts bridges nuclear submarines school I can just keep going on and on. Expect the country to run on smiles and sunshine?
Well, bridges and schools don't require federal taxes, as they are state funded.
And as I said, the fed gov has other tax sources, namely excise taxes and tariffs, with which it can provide for a navy.
Astronauts can be cut, unless individual people really think they're necessary, in which case they can choose to fund the space exploration company of their choice. Taxes should go to governing, not exploring space.
Don't you get anything from exploring space?
I mean, without space exploration they'd be no satellites, that'd be GPS, a lot of communication systems etc
Space Age inventions you probably use - CNN.com
Cordless tools, smoke detectors, enriched baby food, protective paint, scratch resistant glasses and so on.
The reality is the government funds a lot of research into things. Businesses then pick up on these ideas later. The biggest are the pharma companies who won't do the risky research, the govt does it, and then the pharma companies then turn the successful research into profit making, and then whine and moan that they pay TOO MUCH TAX. Go figure.
With the attitude of "government should be paying for research" you'd be living like the Amish (well not quite, but you get the point hopefully).
You do know that the whole space race was just another escalation of the cold war don't you? We didn't do it out of some altruistic desire
The space race just happened to be one thing the government did that actually had ancillary benefits for the public
It was an anomaly
Who in the world said it was, dupe? Back to the 1500"s? Great idea. Maybe the GOP should stop wrecking the economy and the ME lol.If you like something and want it you should pay for it. It's not everyone else's job to provide you with the things you want.I like roads and cops and trains and airports- now falling apart here. Thanks idiot GOP.Haven't seen a single "fair" tax proposal that doesn't raise taxes on the working poor and cut taxes on the wealthyHe's parroting an obscure RW propaganda....What he's missing is that the elite ripping off the world are overwhelmingly RW/GOP.
Ever notice these "fair tax " threads always end up being about how you can further fuck over the poor and working stiffs .
There is no need for any type of tax...income, property or even consumption. USA.INC is sitting on TRILLIONS in wealth. Do some research into the Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports and get back to me...or STFU...I get tired of trying to school morons like you.
Stuff? Well just name. Astronauts bridges nuclear submarines school I can just keep going on and on. Expect the country to run on smiles and sunshine?
Well, bridges and schools don't require federal taxes, as they are state funded.
And as I said, the fed gov has other tax sources, namely excise taxes and tariffs, with which it can provide for a navy.
Astronauts can be cut, unless individual people really think they're necessary, in which case they can choose to fund the space exploration company of their choice. Taxes should go to governing, not exploring space.
Don't you get anything from exploring space?
I mean, without space exploration they'd be no satellites, that'd be GPS, a lot of communication systems etc
Space Age inventions you probably use - CNN.com
Cordless tools, smoke detectors, enriched baby food, protective paint, scratch resistant glasses and so on.
The reality is the government funds a lot of research into things. Businesses then pick up on these ideas later. The biggest are the pharma companies who won't do the risky research, the govt does it, and then the pharma companies then turn the successful research into profit making, and then whine and moan that they pay TOO MUCH TAX. Go figure.
With the attitude of "government should be paying for research" you'd be living like the Amish (well not quite, but you get the point hopefully).
You do know that the whole space race was just another escalation of the cold war don't you? We didn't do it out of some altruistic desire
The space race just happened to be one thing the government did that actually had ancillary benefits for the public
It was an anomaly
The benefits were rather meager in comparison to the cost.
That might be true but I'm not sure that the profits made by private companies who exploited the technology and the benefits to the consumers don't outweigh what the government spent
I know people in Biderberg etc or who know them. No conspiracies. Idiocy.Conspiracy theories about Bilderberg etc are nutty...
Geez, dude? How old are you? You are either too young to wipe your ass or you are old and senile....but there is no way that you are old enough to have any critical thinking skills......either that or you suffer from a terminal case of cognitive dissonance.....
Nope, just a couple pals with many billions who want low taxes, cheap labor, to mislead the chumps and to screw the environment and the country...There is no such conspiracy, dupe. But the New BS GOP certainly is bought off by big money a-holes.Hey nutjob....Tell us about BilderbergTruth is stranger than fiction and I have to admit, had someone posted the things I have when I was still in the dark? I would have the same reaction so no offense is taken. I had people try and wake me up that things were not as they seemed but I was stuck in the left versus right paradigm...stuck in the matrix and I wasn't willing to budge. It was the revelations of Eric Snowden that the Patriot Act was written well in advance of 9/11 and the security apparatus for a spy grid was in place beforehand that shook me out of my complacency. When I realized that everything I believed in had been a lie...I suffered from depression to the point that I could not eat or sleep for a solid month. Fortunately I had a boss that knew what I was going through and he cut me all kinds of slack. He said it's a helluva thing to learn that everything you believed in was a lie but to hang in there and that he had my back. I got over it and I went from being depressed to being so fucking pissed that I became an information junkie. I gave my TV away which was hard as hell to do because I was so addicted to having that noise in the background that I couldn't fall asleep without it...then I realized that it was part of the problem and that it was nothing but a propaganda tool....they call it "program" for a reason.
So down the rabbit hole I went with a conviction and a desire for truth that burns even unto this day. I bought an I-Pod so I could download lectures and documentaries and listen to them at work while I repaired machines. I jot down notes so I can do the vetting of information when I get home. I have become an expert at finding real information that is out there readily available. I started sharing some of the information i have learned on other blog sites like the Yahoo news boards especially about the Federal Reserve only to find that my work would be deleted. I have had over 2,000 posts deleted by Yahoo for posting about the Fed so I know that I am hitting too close to the truth. All I can say to you is that you will need your own "Come to Jesus" understanding of how things really are and they are not what you think. I can only do what I can to try and wake people up as to what has been done to them. As someone that has spent so much time learning the things I have? It's so easy for me to see but I know it is hard for others. There were many that tried to wake me up but I shunned them....wish I could find them now and tell them that they were right. Good on ya......if you decide to take the red pill and want some direction, all you need to do is ask.
What is there to say about them? They are just another offshoot group of the CFR, Trilateral Commission and the Committee of 300 that decide which economies will be wrecked and which ones will be allowed to thrive, make long range plans just so long as it serves their globalist agenda. There was serious denial for a couple of decades that there was an actual meeting of the powerful elite...those that said there was.... were called "conspiracy theorists"...only to find out that they were right all along. George Carlin, a flaming liberal even did a routine about the Bilderburgers.........I guess he was a kook as well, no? Is it really that big of a conspiracy that the people that control all the wealth would get together and have a plan? Seriously, you are unbelievably naive....anyone that would take your fool-fueled rants to heart would need the IQ of a kitten......
Wow, Franco...sounds like you are accusing the neocon GOP of being involved in a conspiracy...but that can't be true because there is no such thing as conspiracies....right? Let me explain a few home truths to you....the demise of the middle class was deemed necessary by a think tank group that wrote the Iron Mountain Report that was finished in 1967 and that an exponential threat would have to be manufactured to keep a growing population in line and subservient to an authoritative power. Read the report yourself...you can find it on-line. It's pretty boring for the most part but it does have some chilling sections that have led us to where we are now. The Club of Rome, an offshoot of the U.N came into existence two years after this report and came out with their "Zero growth" plan in the early 70's and that is when the environmental movement took place. Look up the quotes of Maurice Strong, look up the 1992 Rio summit, Agenda 21 and the map that they proposed for the United States and then compare it to all the federal land "da gubermint" has claimed ownership of and tell me that they don't mirror each other....I know my shit....I live and breathe this stuff. I am an avid researcher and an expert at putting the pieces together. I would LOVE to get a politician into a debate on live TV...especially a president and lay all this out and watch them stutter and stammer. I would have all the documentation and quotes in paper form for their perusal.....they wouldn't touch this stuff in a live forum with a ten foot pole because they know they would be stone cold BUSTED.
Then you should have simply said that. My position is quite simple, actually. Demand for other people's money goes up, not down. The term "fair share" is bandied about like it has real meaning, but is never defined. It is never defined because then it becomes a limit, and those who wish to take other's money do not like limits.How do you get that conclusion from that premise?Even a generic answer is almost impossible to come by. The term really is something to hide behind and isn't really about fair at all.I'd say setting a share is very difficult. I'm sure if you got a team working on how much things cost and how much people would have to spend, and how much they do spend etc, then you might get an idea. However this is very complex.
So because you can't measure fair so easily, it should be as unfair as possible then?
It's a question. I'm giving you the chance to explain yourself a bit more.
Really? Whom do you know personally? And if it was just such an innocent meeting of the elite? Why all the security? Methinks that you are simply lying your ass of yet again.....you can't out debate me on this.....not on your best day.I know people in Biderberg etc. No conspiracies. Idiocy.Conspiracy theories about Bilderberg etc are nutty...
Geez, dude? How old are you? You are either too young to wipe your ass or you are old and senile....but there is no way that you are old enough to have any critical thinking skills......either that or you suffer from a terminal case of cognitive dissonance.....
Then you should have simply said that. My position is quite simple, actually. Demand for other people's money goes up, not down. The term "fair share" is bandied about like it has real meaning, but is never defined. It is never defined because then it becomes a limit, and those who wish to take other's money do not like limits.How do you get that conclusion from that premise?Even a generic answer is almost impossible to come by. The term really is something to hide behind and isn't really about fair at all.
So because you can't measure fair so easily, it should be as unfair as possible then?
It's a question. I'm giving you the chance to explain yourself a bit more.
I did simply say that, it's not my fault if people start adding demons onto my posts.
Fair share is used in opposition to a flat tax. A flat tax isn't a fair tax. It's hard to define what fair is, but most people would like to see a fair tax, they just aren't sure what it is, so don't try and define it more than by saying "a fair share"
Then you should have simply said that. My position is quite simple, actually. Demand for other people's money goes up, not down. The term "fair share" is bandied about like it has real meaning, but is never defined. It is never defined because then it becomes a limit, and those who wish to take other's money do not like limits.How do you get that conclusion from that premise?So because you can't measure fair so easily, it should be as unfair as possible then?
It's a question. I'm giving you the chance to explain yourself a bit more.
I did simply say that, it's not my fault if people start adding demons onto my posts.
Fair share is used in opposition to a flat tax. A flat tax isn't a fair tax. It's hard to define what fair is, but most people would like to see a fair tax, they just aren't sure what it is, so don't try and define it more than by saying "a fair share"
Why must there be a tax placed on the bartering of one's time and labor in exchange for something of value? Our founding fathers certainly didn't believe in that and they expressed that in the organic constitution and it has been upheld by the Supreme Court. Why do you believe that a central bank owned by international bankers have the right to extend credit from nothing and then tax our labor to pay for it? Do you not have sense that God saw fit to give a goat?
Well, bridges and schools don't require federal taxes, as they are state funded.
And as I said, the fed gov has other tax sources, namely excise taxes and tariffs, with which it can provide for a navy.
Astronauts can be cut, unless individual people really think they're necessary, in which case they can choose to fund the space exploration company of their choice. Taxes should go to governing, not exploring space.
Don't you get anything from exploring space?
I mean, without space exploration they'd be no satellites, that'd be GPS, a lot of communication systems etc
Space Age inventions you probably use - CNN.com
Cordless tools, smoke detectors, enriched baby food, protective paint, scratch resistant glasses and so on.
The reality is the government funds a lot of research into things. Businesses then pick up on these ideas later. The biggest are the pharma companies who won't do the risky research, the govt does it, and then the pharma companies then turn the successful research into profit making, and then whine and moan that they pay TOO MUCH TAX. Go figure.
With the attitude of "government should be paying for research" you'd be living like the Amish (well not quite, but you get the point hopefully).
You do know that the whole space race was just another escalation of the cold war don't you? We didn't do it out of some altruistic desire
The space race just happened to be one thing the government did that actually had ancillary benefits for the public
It was an anomaly
The benefits were rather meager in comparison to the cost.
That might be true but I'm not sure that the profits made by private companies who exploited the technology and the benefits to the consumers don't outweigh what the government spent
How do you compare the benefits that people get with the cost?
Then you should have simply said that. My position is quite simple, actually. Demand for other people's money goes up, not down. The term "fair share" is bandied about like it has real meaning, but is never defined. It is never defined because then it becomes a limit, and those who wish to take other's money do not like limits.How do you get that conclusion from that premise?
It's a question. I'm giving you the chance to explain yourself a bit more.
I did simply say that, it's not my fault if people start adding demons onto my posts.
Fair share is used in opposition to a flat tax. A flat tax isn't a fair tax. It's hard to define what fair is, but most people would like to see a fair tax, they just aren't sure what it is, so don't try and define it more than by saying "a fair share"
Why must there be a tax placed on the bartering of one's time and labor in exchange for something of value? Our founding fathers certainly didn't believe in that and they expressed that in the organic constitution and it has been upheld by the Supreme Court. Why do you believe that a central bank owned by international bankers have the right to extend credit from nothing and then tax our labor to pay for it? Do you not have sense that God saw fit to give a goat?
Well, tax exists to pay for things that are used. There are a variety of different ways of taxing, from taxing income, taxing on what we pay for and so on.
What do you think would be a better way of collecting the tax money? Or do you think that we should just pay for everything we use when we use it?
Just to point out that businesses would hate this idea as they'd have to pay MORE to run their business.
One of the reasons why we pay tax on our work is that it substitutes businesses paying tax. In other words, businesses feel better that YOU pay the tax on the money they pay you, than the govt taking the money from them directly.
Would you prefer say $50,000 a year and pay 30% tax ($15,000 a year, so $35,000 a year) or to pay 5% tax ($2,500) but earn $37,500 a year?
It's the same deal, you get the same amount of money, only one looks bigger (better bragging) but you pay more tax (more complaining).
Don't you get anything from exploring space?
I mean, without space exploration they'd be no satellites, that'd be GPS, a lot of communication systems etc
Space Age inventions you probably use - CNN.com
Cordless tools, smoke detectors, enriched baby food, protective paint, scratch resistant glasses and so on.
The reality is the government funds a lot of research into things. Businesses then pick up on these ideas later. The biggest are the pharma companies who won't do the risky research, the govt does it, and then the pharma companies then turn the successful research into profit making, and then whine and moan that they pay TOO MUCH TAX. Go figure.
With the attitude of "government should be paying for research" you'd be living like the Amish (well not quite, but you get the point hopefully).
You do know that the whole space race was just another escalation of the cold war don't you? We didn't do it out of some altruistic desire
The space race just happened to be one thing the government did that actually had ancillary benefits for the public
It was an anomaly
The benefits were rather meager in comparison to the cost.
That might be true but I'm not sure that the profits made by private companies who exploited the technology and the benefits to the consumers don't outweigh what the government spent
How do you compare the benefits that people get with the cost?
You mean you have no frikken idea?
Now that's hilarious!
Then you should have simply said that. My position is quite simple, actually. Demand for other people's money goes up, not down. The term "fair share" is bandied about like it has real meaning, but is never defined. It is never defined because then it becomes a limit, and those who wish to take other's money do not like limits.It's a question. I'm giving you the chance to explain yourself a bit more.
I did simply say that, it's not my fault if people start adding demons onto my posts.
Fair share is used in opposition to a flat tax. A flat tax isn't a fair tax. It's hard to define what fair is, but most people would like to see a fair tax, they just aren't sure what it is, so don't try and define it more than by saying "a fair share"
Why must there be a tax placed on the bartering of one's time and labor in exchange for something of value? Our founding fathers certainly didn't believe in that and they expressed that in the organic constitution and it has been upheld by the Supreme Court. Why do you believe that a central bank owned by international bankers have the right to extend credit from nothing and then tax our labor to pay for it? Do you not have sense that God saw fit to give a goat?
Well, tax exists to pay for things that are used. There are a variety of different ways of taxing, from taxing income, taxing on what we pay for and so on.
What do you think would be a better way of collecting the tax money? Or do you think that we should just pay for everything we use when we use it?
Just to point out that businesses would hate this idea as they'd have to pay MORE to run their business.
One of the reasons why we pay tax on our work is that it substitutes businesses paying tax. In other words, businesses feel better that YOU pay the tax on the money they pay you, than the govt taking the money from them directly.
Would you prefer say $50,000 a year and pay 30% tax ($15,000 a year, so $35,000 a year) or to pay 5% tax ($2,500) but earn $37,500 a year?
It's the same deal, you get the same amount of money, only one looks bigger (better bragging) but you pay more tax (more complaining).
Get it through your head....listen carefully....the income tax does not go towards funding the day to day operation of USA.INC. It is used to pay interest to the foreign owned Federal Reserve bankers that took receivership of USA.INC in 1912 and got what basically amounts to the contract to provide the 19 essential services of "government" and they turned it into a for profit venture...thus the acts, statutes and codes all designed to bring in revenue. It is one MASSIVE corporate entity with over 18,500 subsidiaries. The states are subsidiaries of the Fed, the towns, cities and counties are subsidiaries of the states that are in turn subsidiaries of the corporate headquarters of the Fed whose headquarters is the city/state that is Washington D.C. Just like Kellogg, Brown and Root is a subsidiary of Halliburton, the cities, towns, counties and states are subsidiaries of USA.INC.....it's a very simple concept to grasp. Every single one of them can be found on Dun and Bradstreet's website and for a fee you can view their Comprehensive Annual Financial Report along with their holdings. I have proved it here many times...I know of what I speak. All the alphabet agencies are incorporated....even the Supreme Court is incorporated. The IRS is incorporated in Puerto Rico as a trust numbered "62".......do you get it now????
You do know that the whole space race was just another escalation of the cold war don't you? We didn't do it out of some altruistic desire
The space race just happened to be one thing the government did that actually had ancillary benefits for the public
It was an anomaly
The benefits were rather meager in comparison to the cost.
That might be true but I'm not sure that the profits made by private companies who exploited the technology and the benefits to the consumers don't outweigh what the government spent
How do you compare the benefits that people get with the cost?
You mean you have no frikken idea?
Now that's hilarious!
Seriously, I feel like I am totally wasting my time here....we are surrounded by blithering idiots...they just don't "get it"........
You do know that the whole space race was just another escalation of the cold war don't you? We didn't do it out of some altruistic desire
The space race just happened to be one thing the government did that actually had ancillary benefits for the public
It was an anomaly
The benefits were rather meager in comparison to the cost.
That might be true but I'm not sure that the profits made by private companies who exploited the technology and the benefits to the consumers don't outweigh what the government spent
How do you compare the benefits that people get with the cost?
You mean you have no frikken idea?
Now that's hilarious!
Seriously, I feel like I am totally wasting my time here....we are surrounded by blithering idiots...they just don't "get it"........
Then you should have simply said that. My position is quite simple, actually. Demand for other people's money goes up, not down. The term "fair share" is bandied about like it has real meaning, but is never defined. It is never defined because then it becomes a limit, and those who wish to take other's money do not like limits.
I did simply say that, it's not my fault if people start adding demons onto my posts.
Fair share is used in opposition to a flat tax. A flat tax isn't a fair tax. It's hard to define what fair is, but most people would like to see a fair tax, they just aren't sure what it is, so don't try and define it more than by saying "a fair share"
Why must there be a tax placed on the bartering of one's time and labor in exchange for something of value? Our founding fathers certainly didn't believe in that and they expressed that in the organic constitution and it has been upheld by the Supreme Court. Why do you believe that a central bank owned by international bankers have the right to extend credit from nothing and then tax our labor to pay for it? Do you not have sense that God saw fit to give a goat?
Well, tax exists to pay for things that are used. There are a variety of different ways of taxing, from taxing income, taxing on what we pay for and so on.
What do you think would be a better way of collecting the tax money? Or do you think that we should just pay for everything we use when we use it?
Just to point out that businesses would hate this idea as they'd have to pay MORE to run their business.
One of the reasons why we pay tax on our work is that it substitutes businesses paying tax. In other words, businesses feel better that YOU pay the tax on the money they pay you, than the govt taking the money from them directly.
Would you prefer say $50,000 a year and pay 30% tax ($15,000 a year, so $35,000 a year) or to pay 5% tax ($2,500) but earn $37,500 a year?
It's the same deal, you get the same amount of money, only one looks bigger (better bragging) but you pay more tax (more complaining).
Get it through your head....listen carefully....the income tax does not go towards funding the day to day operation of USA.INC. It is used to pay interest to the foreign owned Federal Reserve bankers that took receivership of USA.INC in 1912 and got what basically amounts to the contract to provide the 19 essential services of "government" and they turned it into a for profit venture...thus the acts, statutes and codes all designed to bring in revenue. It is one MASSIVE corporate entity with over 18,500 subsidiaries. The states are subsidiaries of the Fed, the towns, cities and counties are subsidiaries of the states that are in turn subsidiaries of the corporate headquarters of the Fed whose headquarters is the city/state that is Washington D.C. Just like Kellogg, Brown and Root is a subsidiary of Halliburton, the cities, towns, counties and states are subsidiaries of USA.INC.....it's a very simple concept to grasp. Every single one of them can be found on Dun and Bradstreet's website and for a fee you can view their Comprehensive Annual Financial Report along with their holdings. I have proved it here many times...I know of what I speak. All the alphabet agencies are incorporated....even the Supreme Court is incorporated. The IRS is incorporated in Puerto Rico as a trust numbered "62".......do you get it now????
I'm sorry, but debate doesn't work with "Get it through your head" kind of attitude.
I'm not going to be told what to think by you or anyone else.
I didn't make a comment on where the money is spent. So I'm not sure why you're bringing this up.
I said that tax is there, and there are different ways of taxing.
Do I get it? Not really, what I don't get is why you didn't read what I wrote and why you've decided that this is you telling the world how to think.
