FairTax Resolutions placed in top ten of Citizens choice before the 2011 Congress

R. George Dunn

My first words in 2012: What is it that has us paying federal tax by income and then paying for those same taxes again when we buy American product and service? FairTax is the most important Resolution before Congress, as it will end unemployment and cure much of our ills.

http://www.slideshare.net/POPVOX/top-10-bills-slides

David Cort~
The actual reason, in my opinion, that the political world does NOT want the Fair Tax, is that the Fair Tax is the single biggest power shift from government back to the people in history. The current tax code is not about revenue. It's been fairly effectively shown that the Fair Tax is fairer, generates a more consistent and dependable stream of revenue, grows the economy, and sustains the government quite adequately. It is naturally progressive and self-regulating. It is more efficiently collected and it broadens the tax base. None of these points can be effectively refuted. Why do lawmakers (and political pundits who support this brand of lawmaker) make fools of themselves trying?

Because to eliminate the current tax code and replace it with a Fair Tax would mean a total restructuring of the power base. Congress now can regulate both the market and the individual by manipulating the tax code. You act this way, we reward you through the tax code. You act that way, we penalize you through the tax code. This all goes away with the Fair Tax. It is important to remember that what a candidate for president wants or wishes does not (and should not) have any effect on something like the Tax code. Those are things that will be implemented by the Congress with or without Presidential approval or desire. We need to be working on our legislators for this.

What does have to happen at the Presidential level is an elimination of crony capitalism; also used to control us and our behavior. There is a huge "underground" government that has nothing to do with the people who are supposed to make laws. The administrative branch has become huge, and a vast majority of that branch is comprised of some old, bald guy in some office deep within the bowels of government, removed several layers from the people who are tasked with regulating us and accountable to virtually no person or persons. And that guy is effectively making laws at the behest of large donors and as favors to companies that make curly light bulbs nobody wants. These people (the NTSB wants to federally outlaw cell phone use in cars??? Who the hell is NTSB and how do they get to make any laws???) make laws at will that have nothing to do with their right to do so and little to do with anyone's good but the folks they seek favor from and give favor to. Seat belt laws have nothing to do with the "good of the people." They have to do with the good of the auto insurance lobby. Why do pharmaceutical companies LIKE federal regulations that make it long, hard, and expensive to develop a new drug? Because the folks who would and could develop new drugs in competition with them can't afford to develop and market new drugs. THAT is what we need to be after our Presidential candidates about. It is just as invasive and controlling, and liberty-stealing as the tax code and much more insidious.

2011 Top 10 bills

www.slideshare.net

 

Ben Franklin~ Least intrusive tax is the consumption tax as it is voluntary

The reach of a consumption tax mathmatically figures out to be about 2% greater into the wealth of the nation. Please go to the following chart which is based on income you volunteer to use for consumption and how much it will cost you under FairTax and the prebate figured in.  Not that the current price of product is, with competition, able to drop 15% with Federal tax removed, paychecks will be near gross amount, and with a shortage of workers, employers will  have to bid for your services.

http://fairtaxer.wordpress.com/2011/11/23/fairtax-your-effective-tax-rate/

Iran would be foolish to attack Israel with Nukes, now wouldn't they

Israeli spy chief downplays Iranian nuke threat

By Abraham Rabinovich - Special to The Washington Times

4:45 p.m., Thursday, December 29, 2011

**FILE** The Bushehr nuclear power plant, outside the southern city of Bushehr, Iran, is seen here on Aug. 20, 2010. (Associated Press)

JERUSALEM — The head of Israel's intelligence agency says that a nuclear-armed Iran does not necessarily pose an existential threat to the Jewish state, according to Israeli ambassadors.

Mossad chief Tamir Pardo addressed a conclave of Israeli ambassadors in Jerusalem on Thursday, saying that Israel's existence is not inevitably endangered by Iran acquiring an atomic weapon, even as Israel has tried to disrupt Iran's nuclear program.

"What is the significance of the term 'existential?'" Mr. Pardo was quoted as saying by several ambassadors. "If you said a nuclear bomb in Iranian hands was an 'existential' threat, that would mean that we would have to close up shop. That's not the situation. The term is used too freely."

The intelligence chief did not comment on an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, which the Islamic republic has said is engaged only in peaceful research.

Mr. Pardo's remarks contradict those of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who reportedly has sought consensus among Israeli officials to attack Iran's nuclear centers.

However, Mr. Pardo's comments echo those of his predecessor at Mossad, Meir Dagan, and of other former and current Israeli security officials.

Mr. Dagan had vigorously opposed an attack and expressed his position publicly after retiring earlier this year. Gabi Ashkenazi, former armed forces chief of staff, also reportedly opposed an attack.

Opponents to an attack plan say that Iran, as a rational state, would not launch a nuclear assault that would ensure a retaliatory Israeli strike on its cities, including holy sites.

Zeevi Farkash, Israel's former military intelligence chief, has said that Iran's main drive for acquiring atomic weapons is not for use against Israel but as a deterrent against U.S. intervention, in much the same way that nuclear-armed North Korea feels secure against a U.S. attack.

Other Israeli leaders argue that Iran, ruled by clerics and mystics, cannot be relied upon to make "rational" decisions with regard to Israel. They also warn about the possibility of Iranan nuclear devices falling into the hands of terrorists.

What's more, they argue, a nuclear-armed Iran could adopt aggressive policies that could roil the entire region and leave Israel more exposed to conventional attack.

Mr. Netanyahu's views on attacking Iran reportedly are shared by Defense Minister Ehud Barak, but not the majority of his Cabinet.

--
If everyone knew all there is to know, they would not do half the things they do, including myself, therefore I must foregive them, including myself.