Friday, November 30, 2012

The ZERO-God

Believe it or not, but one of the most difficult to understand concepts in Mathematics is the idea of ZERO.   What is ZERO?

Is it something?
Can you count it?
Can you measure it?
How can nothing be something?
How can you count anything that doesn't exist?  

It leads to many philosophical debates and discussions and yet it seems so trivial to the average person.  For example, by saying "How many zigwats are there in the universe", I would have to first describe what a zigwat is and therefore in your mind you could envision this mythical creature and therefore it no longer "does not exist", because it exists inside your mind.  How therefore can I say there are ZERO zigwats?

The reason I bring this somewhat innocuous topic up is because today religion and atheism are at odds.  Especially this time of year when countless towns and cities across this nation of ours roll out their nativity scenes of Joseph,Mary and the baby Jesus.  Like clock work, the nativities go up and the lawyers get busy filing claim after claim for atheists who demand that all of government be devoid of all mention of God and religion.  They claim that religion offends them and leaves them feeling "excluded".  

So my question to them is this:  Does Atheism proclaim a ZERO-God?

Religion is, at its core, a system of beliefs in "something" that holds a group of people together.  But even "nothing" is "something".  Atheism itself means "A belief in No God" and therefore, a belief in a ZERO-God.  It has by its own admission, a religion in which the ZERO-God:

   - Created the universe.
   - Created the earth
   - Created all creatures
   - Created man
   - Listens to man
   - Cares about man

So if government must be devoid of "God" then it must adhere to atheism which in the end demands the belief in a ZERO-God.    Therefore the government would in effect be establishing the religion of the ZERO-God and therefore violating the 1st Amendments "Establishment Clause".  So even THEY would be violating the Constitution themselves whether they like it or not.



A small note on the "establishment clause":
To understand the "Establishment Clause" you need to understand the founders of our country.  In 1534 Henry the 8th, through the "Act of Supremacy"  which declared the king to be the only Supreme Head in Earth of the Church of England.  Later the "Treasons Act" made it punishable by death to not acknowledge that idea.   Because the ministers of the Church of England were paid by the king, they effectively became his "mouth-pieces" to disseminate the "kings truth" rather than "God's truth".  Later groups of "separatists" decided to worship their own way in their own homes.   This caused alarm by the government, leading them to pass the "Act of Uniformity" that required all citizens to attend the Church of England every Sunday.  A person who chose not to attend would be fined 1 shilling every Sunday.   People conducting non-conforming church services would be imprisoned or executed. These acts were what drover our founders, the Pilgrims, to take the long and dangerous voyage over the Atlantic and risk their very lives to come here.

This is what ESTABLISHING A RELIGION really looks like.

Placing a nativity on a courthouse lawn does not EVEN COMPARE with having a church bought and paid for by the government and forcing citizens to attend it.   If our founders saw what some in this country consider "establishing a religion" they would be mortified, because they risked life and limb at the hands of their government while people today just have to say "their feelings were hurt" or "they felt left out" in order to evoke the "establishment clause".

The government has always in the past tried to encourage religion without establishing one.  For example, 1782 Congress reviewed and recommended the printing of the Aitken Bible (also known as the Bible of the Revolution).  Why did they do this?  Because at the time the only Bibles available were the English translation and they were in short supply after the Revolutionary War.  Aitken's paid for the printing of the bible, but he requested Congress to review it and give a recommendation so he could get it printed.  Here is a statement printed inside the bible:

"Reverend Gentlemen,
"Our knowledge of our piety and public spirit leads us without apology to recommend to your particular attention the edition of the Holy Scriptures publishing by Mr. Aitken. He undertook this expensive work at a time when, from the circumstances of the war, and English edition of the Bible could not be imported, nor any opinion formed how long the obstruction might continue. On this account particularly he deserves applause and encouragement. We therefore wish you, Reverend Gentlemen, to examine the execution of the work, and if approved, to give the sanction of our judgment, and the weigh of your recommendation. 


Was this establishing a religion?  No.  Not in the least!  It was promoting it though.  There in lies the difference.  For example, today the federal government promotes home ownership by allowing home-buyers to deduct their mortgage interest and property taxes from their income.  Why? Because homeowners are a benefit to society.  We become better citizens by putting down roots in our towns and cities.  We become INVESTED into our communities.   If, however, the federal government MANDATED that everyone over the age of 25 buy a home or pay a penalty (kind of sounds like Obama-care doesn't it?) ... then that would be ESTABLISHING home ownership.

Putting up Christmas Trees or having Thanksgiving celebrations does not MANDATE or ESTABLISH a religion... it PROMOTES it.  Why should the government promote religion?  For the same reason it promotes home-ownership.  It makes us better citizens and it helps support the Republic. George Washington said in his Farewell Address:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness

The Republic needs religion to survive (but religion only needs the Republic to leave it alone).

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Destroying the middle class









Today you hear a lot about how the separation between the rich and poor in America is widening and that the middle class is being wiped out.  For the left, the problem is the rich, out of their own greed, are preventing the poor from moving up.  To me however the problem is not caused by the rich, but instead by government regulation. 

In the past, America had  a very vibrant and health middle class.   Our structure was one of a series of "steps" ranging from  poor, lower-middle, middle, upper-middle, and rich.  Each step was within "reach" of the previous step allowing people to move up (and in some cases down) with little difficulty.  A poor person could work a simple factor job and work their way up to more skilled position and enter the middle class.  A lower-middle-income person could open up a small business out of their car or garage.  After some time they can work their business up to a level of opening up a shop.  They could hire extra help and work their business up to where they could afford to expand to multiple locations and within time if they desired take company to a more national level and enter the rich class of America.  Success stories like that of Dave Thomas the founder of "Wendy's" restaurants, who started with literally nothing and became a millionaire by working his way up through the restaurant business and later starting his own chain, were common place.

Enter the "nanny state" in which the government, for our own "protection", adds business regulations.  These regulations limit things such as where you can set up your business.  You want to use your garage?  Forget it!  You want to sell things out of your car on the street?  Don't even think about it!   Other regulations limit WHO can open up a business and who cannot.  You want to braid hair?   In the state of Illinois you will need 1000 hours of training and $15,000 of education to obtain a cosmetology degree before you can do that.  And all to often, those you create such regulations are already in the business and use the government as a way to keep competition low.These regulations remove the lower rungs of the economic ladder (see below).


 This makes it MORE difficult for the poor to take that "first step" in the economic ladder towards a better life.  While some of these regulations seem non-intrusive to you or me, to someone who is heavy in debt and has little in their savings (if they have any at all), even a small $100 license fee can seem insurmountable.

But it doesn't stop there.   For even the Middle class trying to make it into the "rich" class, regulation can be used to impede their progress. In the early 1900's one could hire workers on as little as a "handshake and a promise".   But today, without litigation-happy society, this is a mere dream.   Employers must have employee contracts detailing, how they will be paid, how they will be evaluated, what their duties will be, what their "rights are", how much time off they will get etc...  Also with regulations being added to them a break-neck speeds, employers must hire hosts of lawyers and accountants to help them keep up and navigate the regulation complexities and nuances.   For established corporations these lawyers are a drop in they proverbial bucket, but for the business owner just starting out, these costs reduce their ability to hire lower skilled workers they need to build, package, ship and bill. 









 And so with fewer people able to ENTER the middle class from the poor-class, the middle class is literally "dying off" over time.

Finally,  because we allow illegal immigrants to enter our country we are "growing" the poor class by adding to them at alarming rates.  Therefore the "poor" class is growing while the middle class is ever shrinking.










Monday, November 26, 2012

North and South poles have switched!!







Many people don't know this, but the North pole has not always been in the north.  In a weird twist of geological events, the north and south poles occasionally switch ends.   This process takes years to happen but it does in deed occur about ever 780,000 years (not sure how this would effect migratory birds, but I am sure it will give our airplanes and ships a run for their money).

Joseph Stalin
Ronald Reagan
So it also seems to occur with political "poles" in which on one end we have freedom and the other end we have totalitarianism (or communism) for just a little over 20 years ago, Russia was the leader and promoter of communism and the US was the leader of the free world. 






  Now looking at our two countries, one must wonder if the US and Russia have somehow "swapped'
 sides.

Vladimir Putin
To illustrate, consider this: the Russian paper, "The Pravda", which was the Soviet Union's own propaganda newspaper today is labeling our President, with no uncertain terms,  a communist.  At the same time the newspaper is contrasting what their leader Vladimir Putin has said recently in speeches that look eerily similar to what President Reagan was promoting in the 80's (lower taxes, smaller government etc..)

See the link below for more information:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/russian-news-outlet-pravda-previously-the-official-press-of-the-ussr-labels-obama-a-communist-in-scathing-oped/

I swear world is upside down now!

Thursday, November 15, 2012

3 solutions to our national debt

There are really on 3 solutions to our national debt crisis.  Anyone who says we can ignore it and it will eventually go away is not living in reality.   The 3 solutions I have can be rated as: BAD, BAD and DISASTROUS

First solution:  Austerity measures. 

    Who likes it:  No one.

This solution requires serious cuts the federal budget.  Everything from welfare, social security, medicare and even the military would need to be addressed.  People would need to help other people rather than hope the government would be there to catch them.

Second solution:  Inflate our way out of debt

    Who likes it:   Politicians
\This is not a new method.  Germany did it after WW-I in the Weinmar Republi.  Loaded with all of Europe's war debt (a requirement from Woodrow Wilson to get France on board for his League of Nations), Germany printed loads of money to payback its debts.  This lead to Hyper-Inflation where wheel-barrels of money were needed to buy a loaf of bread and for many it was more cost effective to use the money as fuel for their furnaces.  This method was also used by the US in the 1970's as well.  Strapped with loads of debt both from the Vietnam War and also from Johnson's War on Poverty, Nixon took the US off the gold-standard in 1971 freeing the treasury to print more money and inflation ensued at levels of 15-20%.  This is Washington's favorite way of fixing these kinds of problems.  Because Congress can set their own pay levels, they are immune to inflation.  While the average person must get by with less and see their savings eaten up by inflation.  For example if inflation is at 12%, the value of goods and services doubles every 6 years (rule of 72), therefore money sitting in a bank drawing 3-5% loses buying power.

Third solution:  Bankruptcy

     Who likes it:  Those who want to "transform" the country

Governments can and often do go bankrupt.  This doesn't mean the country does not exist anymore.  It just means the country must change how it does things.  This is what we did to the USSR in the 90's after they bankrupted themselves trying to compete in an arm's race with the US under the leadership of Ronald Reagan.  They had to re-write their constitution and make changes to their way of doing things.  Russia went from a centralized government that owned everything to a republic in which citizens were free to own property and businesses again.  In other words, they became more like us.

We too, if we do not fix the mess we are in may also have to declare bankruptcy.  We would have to re-write our contract with the citizens as well and most likely that Constitution will be LESS Free than the one which we have held for over 200 years.  We may see the end of "states" and instead have a large national system with "zones" or "wards".   We will most likely see the end of gun ownership and the freedom of religion and speaking.  Property rights may need to be "communitized" (the individual is subject to the community and its interests). 

This is of course the most disastrous of the 3 solutions.  But I fear there are many who are counting on this.















Wednesday, November 14, 2012

I want to SCREAM!

I am sitting in a Starbucks waiting for my son to get out of his meeting and can't help but notice all the obliviously happy people around me.  Most of them are under 25 from what I can tell.  The man next to me is listening to music on his cell phone.  Another man two tables from me is watching a movie on his laptop.  At a table in the corner is a group of what appears to be college students sitting around joking about their lives (2 are guys who are trying to desperately get the attention of the one very attractive female in the group).  A girl across from me is feverishly texting on her phone (maybe she should call and save her fingers the trouble). 

All of them so merry but unaware that the world they were brought up in going to change dramatically over the next 4 years.   Most of these "adults" (I use that term loosely) have no idea of what inflation, qualitative-easing, laffer-curve, dynamic-scoring, static-scoring, debt crisis, fiscal-cliff even mean.  They have no understanding of our government or our constitution.   They know nothing of our heritage or our history.   They know more about Justin Bieber and Justin Timberlake than they do of Washington, Jefferson, Madison or Lincoln combined.  To them watching Jon Stewart counts as watching the news and staying "informed" (sort of a TV-two-fer where you get comedy AND news all rolled into one).  They also see watching the president on the late-night-talk-shows as election-decision-data-gathering and feel the debates are too long and too wordy (Can't we cut it down to 30 minutes instead of 3 90 minute sessions?)

They will spend more time deciding what to put on in the morning than who they will vote for in a presidential election.  (a news piece showed that the most Googled question on November 6th was "Who is running for president").   They have been pampered and padded over their lives.  Given A's when they should have gotten B's or C's.  They are frustrated when their phone doesn't get service within 10 seconds of turning it on.    They will spend $5 on a coffee they will consume in  15 minutes but not give  $5 to a charity.  They know how to work their smart phone but they are not smart enough to find a job.

I JUST WANT TO SCREAM!  ARE YOU SO BLIND?  ARE YOU SO STUPID?

Why taxing the rich NEVER works

People often mistake INCOME and WEALTH as the same thing when nothing can be further from the truth.  When people hear that we are only going to increase taxes on the millionaires and billionaires they compute the amount of money they think the government will pull in based on their wealth and not on their income.   We forget that the tax we pay is the INCOME tax and not a wealth tax.  As the word income implies, its the wealth that is in-coming or coming-into our possession.  Once possessed it cannot be taxed again.

The millionaires and billionaires may in fact end up paying ZERO federal income tax when all is said and done.  How this is done is not magic or some hidden fund or loop-hole they are utilizing.  Instead it is simply by reducing their "income" to zero and zero times anything is still zero.  They can do this because they can afford to do this.

If I gave you 10 million dollars, you would be able to live out the rest of your life fairly comfortably.  For me that would give me about $300,000 per year.  I would not have to invest it at all and therefore pay no tax on it.  This is how millionaires and billionaires would circumvent the increase in taxes altogether and in the end the treasury would collect less in taxes rather than more. 

This is the difficult dance that Obama has attempted to perform.   As we know from this past election Obama demonized the rich by going after one of their own ... Mitt Romney.  He cannot take back all of his rhetoric and negative ads and expect the golden goose to which he has beaten over the head time and time again to lay its golden eggs at his feet.  Instead it may spurn his requests and make him go without.

But wait a minute you say, "We've seen many rich people saying they would gladly pay more in taxes.  So maybe they don't feel so badly about the president"

To me, however, the rich can be divided into 2 camps:  earners and non-earners.

Earners:
   - Business owners and CEO's
   - Entrepreneurs
   - Inventors
   - Capital Investors

Non-earners
   - Hollywood stars
   - Sport Athletes (NBA, NFL, MLB etc)
   - Musicians and Singers
   - Hedge Fund managers




Now looking at those 2 lists you may be thinking.. "CEOs??"    Yes they do earn the money they are  paid.  Did they just wake up one day and say "Make me a CEO!" ?  No.  Many worked their way up through the manager ranks and VP levels to prove their ability to manage large groups of people and large budgets.  They make the big decisions like:

- Where to build (or close)
- What to make (or not make)
- When to hire (and when to fire)
- When to split stocks (or buy them back)

Those who fill out the non-earners ranks of course do work hard at what they do, but often they do not make decisions that effect the lives of 1000's of people and while they may give us a few minutes of enjoyment, they do not move the world forward and give us more stuff to put under our proverbial "christmas tree".   The non-earners are of course MORE than happy to give up more of their NON-EARNED-INCOME to the government for that which is not earned is not appreciated whether that be a welfare check or a big-paycheck from a movie studio.

What about the sub-millionaires?  Those making $250K or more?   They can't live on their acquired wealth as well so won't they be paying more in taxes? 

To a point yes.  But we will not go unscathed because most of these are small business owners who will either make up for the higher taxes either by charging more for their services or by laying off some of their workers to increase their profits.  Either way, everyone will be paying these taxes and not just the top 1 or 2 percent.

Secession is NOT an option

Recently the White House web-site has been inundated with requests to allow their states to secede from the union peacefully.

First of all, I understand the frustration of losing the election.  It hurts.  I also know the frustration of knowing what is coming down the pipe towards us.  More taxes. More regulation. Less freedom.  More crap from the White House.  It's like the time when I was in the backyard with some friends years ago and we were watching our kids play on the swing when we saw my friends 3 year run in front of the swinging kids.  We knew what was about to happen but were powerless as we watched my son swing right into her, knocking her over like a bowling pin.  It all happened in slow motion in our minds and I swear I felt a pain strike into me before she was struck.

So to it is with what we see happening before our very eyes.  The death of the Republic and the rise of Socialist-States-of-America.

But in reality we are still the UNITED STATES of AMERICA.  We must stick together and hope that through education (not the kind the schools provide) we can win back the hearts of our citizenry.  Secession is NOT the answer because there are many around the world who would LOVE to see that happen for they know a divide USA is an impotent USA.   Tough times are ahead.  The 70's were not a cake-walk either.  High gas prices. High unemployment. High interest rates (18%).  Hostages in Iran.  A Republican party in disarray after Watergate.  A military coming back from its first defeat (Vietnam).   Yet with all of this, America turned around and voted in Ronald Reagan in a land-slide.  It can happen again, but only if we stick together.

Finally, I do not think it wise to "sign" the White House website request to secede.  Putting your name on a document that some could use against you in the future is not a wise thing.  I know it may be a way of "protesting" but protest is only useful if it brings about a change.  This type of protest will never bring about change and is a dead end.   Some have decided to protest by flying their flag upside down.  This has been used by sea going vessels as a sign of "distress" and is not dishonoring the flag.  However, I say do not do this lightly.  Be ready for those around you who do not understand this as a sign of distress to call you unpatriotic and look to do you harm.   Also, be ready with an answer to those who question your upside-down-flag.  Be reasonable and thoughtful.  Not angry.

If you have read my other blogs you know how much value I put in education. To me that is half the battle.  For too long we let our public schools do all the teaching and this is what they have brought us.  We must first educate ourselves and then our children, our grand-children, nieces, nephews, boy-scouts .. who ever.  We must teach them REAL history and REAL values. We are blessed by God with the internet and EASY access to materials both written and in videos.  We can show them  Reagan's 1964 speech and Milton Friedmans 1980 TV series "Free to chose" .  There are also countless websites that offer education free of charge such as : Prager University and  Declaration Entertainment


And these are just a few..





Monday, November 12, 2012

Between a rock and a hard place

  Now the election is over and American has found itself in dire-straights for the next 4 years with a debt ceiling crisis looming (referred to as the fiscal cliff) we are right where many on the extreme-left have wanted to put us for a long time.  Taking a page from Ronald Reagan they have put us on a road to serfdom that we may not be able to get out of without some Houdini-like maneuvers on our part.

  To those who are unclear about that last sentence let me be more expound.   Back in the 80's the US was in the middle of the Cold-War with their arch rival the USSR (Soviet Union) and many feared that the two countries would square off in a nuclear-war contest.  Ronald Reagan however turned the Cold-War into Economic-War.  Using our economic might, he ratcheted up our military spending building better aircraft, ships, submarines and satellites (Start Wars Initiative to take down incoming enemy missiles).  Russia countered our efforts by spending larger and larger parts of their GDP to build up their own military, but because of their economic model their did not have as deep of pockets as our US government did causing them to go further into debt.  As a result the people of the USSR suffered.  They had to go without for a long period of time (food and resources were in short supply).   The grumblings of "the masses" forced Russia to invoke Perestroika (reforms) that allowed more freedom of speech and ownership.   This was the beginning of the end for the USSR.

   Finally the debt was too much and the only way out was a full blown bankruptcy.  Just as a company that is debt ridden can go through bankruptcy so also a country can and the methods are quiet similar.

   First a company sells off its less necessary and viable parts allowing it to focus on its main areas.  For Russia, this was letting go of its eastern block countries like Poland, Rumania, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia etc.  With these gone, Russia would be able to serve its own people better

  Second a company must restructure itself and come up with a better business plan/model.  This may mean firing the CEO and several VP's and managers while also changing their system of rewards and bonuses.  For Russia, this was throwing away their old Constitution and system of government and coming up with a new system that is fairer and just.   Their new system allowed capitalism and free-markets to come in and develop new businesses.  

  With the first 2 steps in place, a company needs to bring in new investors to help fund them and pay off old debts (or at least the ones they can pay back).  Without the first 2 steps, very few would be willing to take a chance.  For Russia, we became their largest investor and gave them loans to keep their lights on until they could become a democratic republic.

   Now here we are facing a debt crisis.  Not one created by external forces, but one created by those inside who care little about our history and our system of government.  Like Russia, we have been duped into running up huge debts through social-security, welfare, medicare and food-stamps.  Later on we will start to feel the weight of the debt of all debts: Obamacare.  All of this, at a time when our country is not at its HEIGHT of economic power, but at its WEAKEST.  Our economy is in a perpetual recession (no one likes to say DEPRESSION anymore).  Higher taxes coming will do two things.

   1) Slow our economy further causing more layoffs. These layoffs will increase to government 
       expenditures in welfare and food-stamps.
   2) Higher taxes will cause lower revenues (Laffer-curve) as incentive to grow income will be
       reduced.  Higher debts will call for MORE taxes and therefore reduced revenues

   At some point we, like Russia, will have to say "UNCLE" and call in the bankruptcy attorneys (the UN) to negotiate a new system of government.   This new system of course will not be as free as the last one, because to them it's FREEDOM that is the cause of all the ills in this world.   To them, too much freedom is a bad thing and allows too much money to go in the hands of too few.  Ronald Reagan predicted this day would happen and said in his 1960 speech, "When that time comes, our surrender will be VOLUNTARY because by that time we will have been weakened within: spiritually, morally and economically".

   To those of you who think this is all just conspiracy stuff, let me discuss what happened in 2008.  If you remember when the debt-crisis first came out in the fall of 2008, by January of 2009, Congress had a 2000 page stimulus bill ready to pass with over $800 billion in goodies to pass out.   Did that bill just write itself?  Of course not.  A group called "The Apollo Alliance" had been working on it over several years in the "event such a catastrophe occurred",  Amazing huh?    We are so lucky to have such a group spending their time thinking about these things.  Given this, don't you think there are people out there right this very minute working on a NEW CONSTITUTION for us to pass in the event we just might need one? 

   What can be done?  We are in a very difficult position.   If business pushes itself and gets the economy running it will only encourage more people to vote for the democrats and would show Obama as the "economic saviour" of our country and further push his agenda.  If business slows down and lays off more people then that plays into the democrats hands all over again and will cause us to race towards the fiscal-cliff.

   To me the only solution would be for business to shutdown in a massive way such that no matter how much sugar the media tries to put on it things will look extremely bad.  This will destroy Obama's clout and any "mandate" he thought he had and hopefully by 2014 we would be able to have a revolution at the polls where people will vote with their pocket books and not their bleeding-hearts.

Friday, November 9, 2012

Increase the DEBT by increasing TAX RATES

PREFACE:  
Obama just met with reports to discuss the issue of the national debt.  During the speech Obama specifically said that in the talks he would NOT allow "dynamic scoring" of whatever budget is produced.  What is "dynamic scoring" ??  It is where the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) takes into account that raising tax rates effects taxpayers behavior and can cause a decrease in revenue (and therefore an increase in the national debt).   This blog was written BEFORE the President made his remarks and proves that the President fully knows that the Laffer-Curve is real which is why he wants to use "static scoring" in which tax rates do not effect our behavior (under this method we would gladly pay 100% of our income to the government).

PLEASE READ THE REST OF THIS BLOG FOR MORE EXPLANATION



Does the title of this blog seem odd?

  It will for most people.

  Human reason seems to make you think that RAISING TAXES should INCREASE REVENUES and therefore DECREASE THE DEBT.

  But that is not reality (something Washington DC is lacking in).  It has been a long proven fact an effect called "The Laffer Curve" is an economic reality.

  The Laffer-Curve was developed by the famous economist Art Laffer who showed that people do not hand over their income to the government without considering ways to reduce their tax levels.  To prove this effect, let us first consider a graph showing the relationship between tax rates of 0% to 100% and how much revenue the government collects.  At the low end when the government has a tax rate of 0% the government collects $0 in revenue ( 0 time anything is 0).  When the government sets the tax rate to 1% they will collect $R of revenue.  When they raise the tax level to 2% they can pretty much be sure they will collect  2 x $R in revenue since the tax level is still relatively low.  At 3% they will collect  3 x $R.

   Now let's consider the extreme level of 100%.  How many people are going go to work if they have to turn over 100% of their income to the government.  That is slavery!   Since there is no incentive to work, there will be $0 collected by the government.  Even at 99% there is still little desire to work.  At some level (maybe 70%) we might feel some accomplishment in going to work and begin to get off our couches and earn some income, although most of us would find some way to under-report our income either by working for cash or barter so that we can keep more of our income.

 

    So we have 2 areas of positive revenue growth on both the left (low side) of the scale and at the right (high side) of the scale.  Therefore there must be a place in the middle where they meet in which the slope of the line is 0 (or horizontal).   This point on the graph is pointed to above with arrow from X% .  This place is where the MAXIMUM level of tax revenue is gathered by the government.  Going OVER this level and the government will start to see a REDUCTION in revenues gathered.

     The question remained for some time , "What is the value of X?".  For some time, many thought the level was at about 70%,but after the Reagan tax reduction from 75% to 38% we saw the government revenues grow and not shrink therefore we knew X had to be much lower.  Finally a study done by 2 professors of economics at UC Berkley called the Romer-and-Romer study (they are married) determined that X was at about 33%. which is where our highest level of taxation is today.

   Are these two economists just some right-wing-tea-party-loving extremists?  NO!  In fact, these 2 professors were put on the Obama administrations counsel on economic reform so we can be sure that President Obama is fully aware that moving the tax levels above where they are today will cause the government to see a reduction in tax revenues if they pursue their "plan of increasing the taxes on the top 2% of earners".

    I believe this is the Presidents overall strategy for by doing so he can bankrupt the country at a faster rate AND make it seem like it was not his fault since, after all, he forced the wealthy to pay more of their "fair share".   You might say he will be able "have his cake AND eat it too".  Today he just wants a 3% increase on the highest tax rate, but what will happen is we will see fewer $$ in revenue and an increase in the national debt.  The democrats will call for even HIGHER tax rates on the wealthy which will result in even LESS revenue   The debt will grow faster and the democrats will call for even HIGHER taxes....

   Do you get the picture now?

   Each increase in taxes will result in fewer revenues and more debt thereby making us drive toward the "fiscal cliff" at higher and higher speeds.