The Communist Origin of the Modern Conservative Movement VI

What was the justification of why the retirement community should be exempt from paying property taxes? The same justification Reagan used to slash the income tax on the ultra wealthy, it would create jobs. The name of the retirement community is the Woodlands, it is upscale and expensive to buy into and you must buy into. When you die the property you own becomes the property of the Woodlands. If you chose to build a 1/2 million dollar house, you may own the house but the property it is built belongs to the Woodlands. When you die your wife is moved to the main building and Woodlands sells the house. The main building which is massive is complete self contained, a small city to its self, you need never leave the building. Everything from beauty salons, to church services is held in the building. It even has its own voting precinct. I am surprised it didn't come complete with its own graveyard. I guess since graves can't be resold every few years it wasn't as good of a business opportunity. The apartments and the houses have changed hands many times by now.

Imagine owning a house that can only be sold to the elderly in their late stages of life and then that you could sell the house again and again. A conman’s dream, you sell it but you still own it. When it opened you paid $90,000 for an apartment, in addition you paid $2,000 a month maintenance charge. After the court battle over property taxes was won by the county those maintenance fees were to be increased dramatically to make sure it would not come out of the massive profits of the so called “non profit” corporation. The non profit corporation had no problem writing a $10 million check.

Were jobs created at the Woodlands retirement community? Without a doubt some jobs were created the ones I notice most often are those cutting grass on the spacious property but is the fact that jobs are created a justification for making one group tax exempt? Had the Woodlands not been built these people for the most part would have lived in the community and consumed most of the same services they did at the Woodlands so in fact the jobs to provide the services would have existed whether or not they lived in the Woodlands. Were some people attracted to Woodlands from out of state? No doubt some were and the selling point to those from the Northeast was that they could come to WV and pay no property tax on a $1/2 million dollar home. Property taxes in Northeastern states often run $10,000 or more a year this was an excellent selling point. They could come to WV and be tax free and the working poor would pay their share of the property tax. Something the rich always believe to be fair is that someone else pays for their county services. After all hadn’t they paid enough property tax to New York?

What the Woodlands retirement corporations really had to sell was lifetime property tax exemptions. You could own property and never ever worry about paying property taxes. This is extremely attractive to those from high property tax states in the northeast. They would like to retire from paying property tax. Non profits status usually granted to “charities,” hospitals, food banks and other organization that the primary purpose was to help others without being in business to make a profit but let’s look at a few examples of what actually happens.

UNICEF CEO, Caryl M Stern makes $1.2 million a year, or a $100,000 a month. Less than 5 cents of your contribution dollar goes to the actual cause. Mr. Stern demands the charity provides him with a Rolls Royce for his exclusive use. In addition he has an expense account rumored to be a $150,000. UNICEF is of course a nonprofit but it is extremely profitable for Stern.

Do you contribute to United Way? Congratulations you helped make the CEO, Brian Gallagher of United Way a multimillionaire. He makes $1,035,347 a year.

Even the head of the Boy Scouts makes $987,412. It seems the time for Boy Scout cookies may near. So close to a million a year but yet so far.

All of these figures and oh so many more are widely available on the internet.

Remember to pay your “fair share” to take care of the millionaires, to quote United Way.

An internet web site Snoops.com attempts to debunk figures posted on other internet web sites about the salaries of the CEO of charities. It says that the salary of Caryl M Stern is not $1.2 million but a measly $472,891. I don’t know how he keeps from starving to death on that pitiful amount. The claims that he is given a Rolls Royce are false according to Snoops. How do they know this? Simple they asked a UINICEF employee who denied that any employee had a company car. Of course the way Snoops terms it is they asked UNICEF but UNICEF is not a person and in the end only a person can answer that question but Snoops doesn’t identify their source.

If you were indeed worried about starving children in the world could you take $472,891 out of the money that was intended to help these children? Stern is in the top 1% of incomes in the United States even if Snoops lower figures are correct. It is obvious that Stern favorite is Stern. We have become accustomed to the evil rich being the CEO of major corporations but being the CEO of a charity that collects change from school children? Who have we become when thieves openly steal from charities without going to jail? To achieve non profit status there should be strict salary limitations and any violations would result in the immediate loss of tax free status for charities specifically designed to make millionaires out of their employees.

The commie/conservative right tells us that the number one enemy is government entitlements so if the commie/conservatives had a chance to sharply reduce many of these government entitlement programs they would bust the doors down for such an opportunity? Last week the commie/conservatives had a chance to sharply reduce several of these government entitlement programs and the democrats supported sharply cutting government entitlements but the commie/conservative managed to muster a majority to block it. What was the bill? The bill to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour would have made millions ineligible for government programs like food stamps, Medicaid, housing assistance. The best way to get people off of government assistance programs is to make sure they are ineligible, that they make enough money to support themselves. A living wage will make it possible to take not only this generation but future generations off of government subsidy programs.

The commie/conservatives have been right all along in one aspect that as long as the government continues to subsidize a group of people they will become dependent on government. But the commie/conservatives have been wrong about the group that is being subsidized. The group being subsidized by the government is the ungodly greedy, the Wall-Mart heirs, and other big businesses who depend on government subsidies to provide them with a minimum wage work force that is made possible only by government subsidies. The Wall-mart heirs now make many on the 4 of the top 10 richest people in America. If you combine the Walton family wealth they are by far the richest in the world, far more than Bill Gates. The Walton fortune was made possible only by low prices, which are made possible by low wages, and low wages are only made possible by large government subsidies to their work force. The rich have become way to accustom to government welfare programs that have made their huge fortunes possible and when the minimum wage hike was voted down you saw the super rich calling their chips in.

A man or woman who works full time in America should be able to feed their family without food stamps, they should be able to live in a decent house without the government subsidies, they should be able to afford health insurance without Medicaid. When a man or woman works full time and yet must seek government assistance to achieve a bare minimum existence you rob him of the most valuable thing on earth, self respect. As hard as he works he is forever dependent on government for his and his family very existence. It is recipe for disaster; it demeans one group and greatly over richens the few. It destroys our society at its foundation, it destroys human nature and self respect.

The right has been right about one thing there has been a group that has been become very dependent on government, the ungodly greedy. Not only they have become dependent but they now have the cubic dollars to control government.

Why are the Republicans so determined to keep the democrats from raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour? If you raise the foundation wage all the wages will go up also. The Republican believe their job is to represent the interest of the ungodly greedy if the minimum wage is raised to $10.10 an hour the Wal-Mart heirs might only make $10 billion instead of $20 billion a year. What a tragedy! Raising the minimum wage might slow the growth of the biggest fortune in history. The ungodly greedy know they should share the wealth and they do all you need to do is check the campaign finance reports of the Republicans for the campaign contributions of the ungodly greedy.

All wealth is ultimately generated by labor even natural resources must be processed and taken to market. All products must be manufactured, transported and marketed these all require extensive amounts of labor. If you can keep the minimum wage down you can suppress wages at all levels.

Words are magic because they frame the problem. If we had called the minimum wage a living wage to start with the problem would be half solved because we all know that a living wage would have to provide enough for someone to live on without having to work and depend on government welfare programs to feed their children. It is high time that we start talking about a living wage not a minimum wage. If the Republicans were truly interested in cutting back on “entitlements” they would support the hike in the minimum wage on the grounds that it would results in millions who would make too much to qualify for entitlement programs like food stamps, housing subsidies, and Medicaid but instead of coming out of Uncle Sam pocket it would have to come out of Sam Walton’s heirs pockets.

How do you hold people down? In America for the last 30 years the tail has been wagging the dog. Just 1/100 of 1% of the population has gained control of our government by using massive amount of money as campaign “contributions” which are no more than thinly veiled bribes. The Supreme Court recently has opened the flood gates removing any limit at all to campaign contributions now all $136 billion of the Wall-Mart fortune could be used as campaign contributions in one election cycle to buy politicians. One of the most basic facts of human nature is that gifts have been used to influence people; it is a tried and true method. From the time of Kings travelers have given gifts to gain favors. The custom of giving gifts to heads of government predates recorded history. This custom that has stood the test of time but at that time Kings already controlled most of the wealth of their countries but it was still effective.

Psychologists have studied why this process works, a gift creates an obligation on the part of the person who accepts the gift. In effect we keep a mental set of books of gains and losses and most of us try and balance those books, we feel obligated, it is simply human nature. What politicians and the Supreme Court would like us to believe is that politicians are somehow superhuman; they are not subject to the laws of human nature. We all know that Emperor has no clothes and yet we pretend he does. Cubic dollars simply put buys influence and at no time in history have so few put so much into buying our government. It may still be one man one vote in America but studies of votes taken in congress shows over and over again that congress votes for the interests of those who make large campaign contributions. Congressmen have no obligation to those who can’t make large campaign contributions. In our system of government a vote is suppose theoretically obligate a politician but votes are secret campaign contributions are anything but.

If money is protected free speech as the Supreme Court has ruled and no limit can be put on political contributions then a limit needs to be put on the total amount of political contributions a politician can take in an election cycle. For instance limit a congressman to $100,000 total and any spending of a personal fortune would be considered part of this $100,000 limit to keep the rich from using their personal fortune to buy elections. The politicians could then be selective about where the campaign contributions came from and would not have to take the money of the rich if they didn’t want to. It is time to move back to one man one vote and away from one dollar one vote.

Since Reagan was elected a tiny group of people, only 1/100 of 1% has taken control of America. The age of greed was ushered in by Reagan with a massive cut in income tax for the greedy. The problem was not that the wealthy were not already extremely well off they just wanted more and the republicans realized if they got more they would share the wealth with the politicians and thus the age of greed was born. There was a fundamental shift in life in America in the 80s that went unnoticed by many. A new theory of economic was being touted by the Republicans it was called “trickle down economics” the theory was simple if water flowed down hill money would also. It is an established rule of plumbing that water does indeed flow down hill but money is not water but money attracts money it is magnetic. But while trickle down economics was not a success for the country as a whole it was a huge success for one small group, politicians, the money going to campaign contributions expanded exponentially.

When experiments were done to determine character what was found is that character is dependent on context. What we think of as a person of good character often has more to with context than the person’s character. In New York in the late 80s and early 90s crime was terrible but when they began to change the context crime dropped dramatically. The subway system was cleaned up graffiti was cleaned off the cars and kept off. People routinely went around turn styles and didn’t pay the fare. What they found out was that even small things changed the context and when even small violations were enforced crime dropped dramatically in New York City. The 80s changed the context in Washington what at one time would have been considered a crime, taking money to vote for a certain political agenda was now the new normal. Politicians signed a pledge before they were elected saying they would not vote for even a dimes increase in taxes on the wealthy. They had sold their soul to the devil before they were even elected the context had changed.

The American people must change the context back to one that favors character and not lack of character. Since the 80s it has been all about the rich, those poor little rich people who have been used and abused by the evil government. At the turn of the twenty century it was all about the robber barons the rich were the ones in the black hats until Reagan rewrote the script and the villains became the victims. Reagan was from Hollywood where fiction ruled. In Hollywood they realize that one must “suspend disbelief’ in order to enjoy a movie but in the 80s Reagan got America to suspend disbelief and many still think the movie hasn’t ended.

The conservative Supreme Court recently ruled that money is free speech. If money is free speech than only the wealthy will have a voice in our government. I don’t think the founding fathers every confused free speech with money. The founding fathers never intended to hang a for sale sign on our government while the Supreme Court sees no problem with our government being auctioned off to the highest bidder. Congress needs to pass a law that clearly stipulates that money is not free speech and never has been.

Of course one bad Supreme Court decision is based on another. If the Supreme Court had not ruled that a corporation had the same rights as an individual in the late 19th century corporations wouldn’t be entitled to free speech or any other of the rights granted under the bill of rights to an individual. One bad decision provides platform on which to build the next bad decision. “The oil and gas industry spent more than $440 million on campaign contributions between 1998 and 2004. If you will remember this time period saw gas go from 92 cents a gallon in December 2001, to $4.29 a gallon a couple years later. Where do you think the $440 million in campaign contributions came from? From the increasing cost of gasoline that where.

When we plan a trip we decide where we want to go and then look at a map to see the best way to get there. A route is picked and we proceed along that route to the destination. Economics is a similar situation you decide on a goal and how you are going to accomplish that economic goal. If Reagan’s goal was to see that only the top 1/100 of 1% would benefit from the increased GNP he accomplished it for the next 30 years only the top 1/100 of one percent of America benefited from all the increases. The Gross National Product (GNP) is the total of all the gods and services produced by the American people; how is it possible that only 1/100 of 1%, just 13,400 taxpayers out of 317 million Americans, received the economic benefit of the increase in GNP for more than 30 years? This was the gift that the commie/conservatives gave to America. America was no longer a country of the people, by the people and for the people, it was a country of the ungodly greedy, by the ungodly greedy and for the ungodly greedy and nowhere could that be seen so clearly as in how the increases in GNP went only to the ungodly greedy.

Was this the result Reagan intended? It doesn’t really matter what Reagan intention was in the end only the result matters. The legend of Reagan continues to eclipse the actual damage he did to America and prevents us from correcting the grievous errors made by Reagan. We have the fiction on one hand and the facts on the other. Reagan is still much like one of the western heroes he played on the silver screen a creation of screen writers and publicity men.

In yesterday paper it was revealed that Los Angles is now paying $318 million dollars in fees to Wall Street Bankers and Hedge Fund Mangers this is more than they pay to repair the streets. Five of the hedge mangers make over a billion dollars a year, one makes over $5 billion a year. How much is too much? Why is Los Angles charged so much? The Wall St bankers are managing the pension funds, for fire, police and other public employees. After several years of managing the pension funds and paying themselves $318 million a year from the pension funds they will declare the pension funds insolvent and tell the Los Angles that they are sorry but the market just went bad. The employees will be asked to accept 30 cents on the dollar. The Wall St Bankers and hedge fund managers will have made billions and they won’t lose the first penny of it.

When taxes were lowered by 60% on the ungodly greedy by Reagan the incentive to commit all kinds of fraud increased exponentially. If you want to increase a certain type of activity an incentive is the way to do it.

Freedom is always limited when ones actions cause harm to others. When we learn to drive we quickly learn our freedom is limited. We you drive any speed you would like, you can’t drive on the left side the road, you can’t run stop signs or red lights and everybody for the most part accepts these rules. No one is ranting on red neck right radio that their constitutional freedoms have been taken away because they can’t drive on the left side the road. But there is still one area where absolute freedom where absolutely no limits are placed, the amount of money one can make. Freedom in all other areas is limited when it does harm to others. Is not reasonable that the freedom to acquire huge sums of wealth be limited when it causes harm to others? America went down this road before with the Robber Barons of the early 20th century. The solution was not to place a hard limit on what one could make but to impose a tax of 93% of each dollar. Is the city of Los Angles and retires not being harmed by $318 million a year of the of city finical resources going to service charges to Wall Street billionaires? Is it really any different than someone having the freedom to drive down the wrong side of the street? The same limits should be placed on accumulating vast sums of wealth by income tax.

When Romney was running for president he was recorder telling his rich donors that 47% of Americans pay no income tax. Of course this falls under freedom of speech, the freedom to tell the most outrageous lies, to defraud people out of money. Was there anyone who actually believed Romney outrageous lie? From personal experience I know that I paid income tax when I was working part time for a $1.65 an hour nearly 50 years ago, I still have the tax return. Actual figures from the Congressional Budget Office show that 81% of households actually paid income tax many of the rest were retired and living off of pensions, savings and even social security which they already paid income tax on in previous years. Since in fact many retires were living off of money that they had already paid tax on the real figure on those paying income tax on their income was closer to 90% but Romney lie gained traction with many because it fit the far right wing narrative of the rich cast as victims of government. Like pieces in a puzzle ideas need to go together to make the illusion complete.

If the public indeed believes the rich are indeed powerless victims of the government then it make it much easier to manipulate the public. You will often hear of a person who has fallen victim to cancer and the public raises money to help only to find out the person never had cancer in the first place, it was only a scam, but public opinion can move mountains. The rich have claimed victim status for over thirty years now all the while their after tax income soared by 6 times. The rich and the fake cancer victims have a lot in common.

Does Putin plan to annex the Ukraine have more to do with influencing politics in the United States than that in the Ukraine? Putin knows that the commie/conservatives have done far more to destroy America than the Russian army could. If Putin can help bring the commie/conservatives back to power in the next election there will be no need to send Russian tanks to America. The commie/conservatives will try to pole vault into office beating their chest and advocating war with Russia. Putin would much rather be the deciding factor in influencing the election in America than in annexing the Ukraine.

If Putin wanted to destroy the United States he could call for nuclear attack but he knows a nuclear attack would bring retaliation. What could he possibly do to destroy the United States that would not bring retaliation? If Putin could just manipulate the United States into yet another long expensive war it would break the back of the United States economically. After the commie/conservative tricked the American into a useless $7 trillion war for a snipe hunt of non existent nuclear weapons all other wars in America history were paid for by raising taxes. Not so with the Iraq war not only were taxes not raised but ungodly got major tax cuts. The expenses for $7 trillion Iraq were kept off the books to keep the public from knowing what was actually going on. It is an old accounting trick, keeping two sets of books, one you show the public and another to track what was actually being spent in Iraq. If the $7 trillion war expenses were on the books it would have been impossible to justify the two massive rounds of tax cuts for the ungodly greedy at a time of soaring national debt. Reagan’s changes to mortgages laws caused a multi trillion bailout of Wall Street. Putin just needs to suck the United States into one more useless prolonged war and the commie/conservative chicken hawks can’t wait to start yet another war.

The commie/conservatives always pretend to be fiscally responsible, they always fain concern about increasing the national debt but yet when baby Bush was elected the Federal budget was not only balanced but it had a surplus. Clinton ran the government with a budget surplus for four consecutives years between 1997 and 2001. As soon as baby Bush was elected and realized he had the Clinton surpluses, he started a campaign to “give the people back their money.” Bush said “give the people back their money” the only trouble was that he gave back the vast majority of the “people’s money” to the richest of the rich that top 1/100 of 1% who had received all the increase in the GNP for the last 30 years. The so called “fiscally responsible” republicans immediately started deficit spending after years of the Clinton surplus. Cheney was the first to invoke the legend of Reagan saying, “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.” Cheney was right in part, Reagan did triple the national debt driven by cutting the taxes on the ungodly greedy by a full 60%. But Reagan’s tripled national debt was passed along for Clinton to deal with.

The legend of Reagan would have you believe that Reagan was a fiscally responsible president when in fact he was the most fiscally irresponsible president in history, the National debt would have been paid in full if Reagan had continued to pay the national debt at the rate his predecessors had. The national debt was actually the war debt and would have been paid off by the early 90s had it continued to be paid down at the rate it had been for 40 years but Reagan tripled the national debt for a new war, a class war on the middle class. Thirteen thousand four hundred taxpayers, only 1/100 of 1% of America population declared war on the rest of America and General Reagan led the charge and inflicted the most damage with his full 60% tax cut for the ungodly greedy.

Tripling the national debt to fend off an enemy invasion is one thing but to give massive tax cuts to the ungodly greedy is quite another. Baby Bush picked up the war on the middle class right where Reagan left off. Baby Bush did Reagan one better, he gave not only one round massive tax cut for the ungodly greedy, he gave a second round. But Bush had one outstanding accomplishment during the Iraq war, when invaded Iraq the price of gasoline in United States was 92.9 cents a gall in December of 2001. Bush drove the price gasoline up to $4.29 a gallon. Saddam’s biggest crime was selling Iraq’s oil for $15 a gallon keeping the price of gasoline in America down. The United States Army was used to teach Saddam and other Arabs a lesson they would sell at the oil cartel’s price or face “shock and awe.” If the price of oil goes down the oil producers in America lose money and America is now one of the biggest exporters of gasoline in the world. America now exports more gasoline than we did in the 50s when refineries in the world were rare.

In 2016 Republicans will campaign as the party of fiscal responsibility while facts show they are the very party that tripled the national debt to give massive tax cuts to the ungodly greedy. In 1980, with the election of Ronald Reagan, the conservatives took working control of the Republican Party for the first time. The conservatives immediately began to practice what was referred to by traditional Republicans as “Voodoo Economics.” The national debt or the debt incurred by WWII was on schedule to be paid off in the early 90s. All the presidents after WWII had paid down the National Debt but the conservatives who practice Voodoo Economics knew that paying down the national debt was of no importance to them they could not raise campaign contributions for paying down the national debt but massive tax cuts for the ungodly greedy would open up a unending cornucopia of campaign contributions that has lasted to this days. The ungodly greedy are always loyal they take care of those who take care of them.


Actually Reagan would have quadrupled the national debt if he had not raised taxes on the poorest Americans four times. Social Security tax revenue is thrown into the same pot as income tax revenue and counted as income even though social security is not really income it is accounted for in that way by the Federal Government so Reagan knew a large social security increase could be used to help to offset his massive tax cut for the ungodly greedy. Reagan raised social security taxes by 13.27% while few got the conservative’s 60% tax cut everyone had to pay the 13.27% social security tax increase. The law of the many takes over and the many that paid the social security tax increase effectively funded the massive tax cuts for the ungodly greedy partly by the increased social security tax and the rest was funded by tripling the National Debt. Regan may have cut the taxes on the ungodly greedy by 60% but he raised social security tax four times. Income taxes have a standard deduction that makes a small portion of the poor tax exemption but social security taxes every dollar the poor make but there is an exemption for the rich, all income over $100,000 or so is exempt from social security tax. The rich get an automatic 6.2% tax exemption on all income over a $100,000 that is a huge tax cut. Reagan robbed the poor to give to the rich; they could have called him Robbing Hood but should have shortened to just “Hood” because those who mug the middle class are referred to as Hoods.”

If you had just driven a car off a cliff would you do it again if you survived? To most people the answer to that question is obvious but after Reagan drove America off the cliff in the 80s baby Bush drove America off the same cliff after the turn century and Romney was going for the hat trick and drive America off the cliff for a third time. It wasn’t like Baby Bush didn’t know what the results of Reagan’s massive tax cuts were, he knew and it made no difference. People always see the world colored by their own self interest and Baby Bush was certainly no different, the massive tax cuts were killing the middle class. But from Baby Bush point of view more tax cuts for the ungodly greedy would trigger more campaign contributions to him and other commie/conservative candidates. The pursuit of power blinds many a man and great wealth purchases power like ordinary men purchase bread.

The Republican spin machine has managed to make the national debt one of the key issues of the 2016 presidential election. The commie/conservative narrative has catapulted the support for the belief that the deficits are a major problem that must be addressed now from 70% to 81%. Of course according to the commie/conservative narrative who is best to handle the deficit problem? The same Republican Party who tripled the deficits under Reagan and doubled it under baby Bush. You have to remember that baby Bush doubled Reagan’s national debt, a debt that was already tripled by Reagan. The national debt, which was on schedule to be paid off in the early 90s, was in fact increased by a factor of 6 by the end of baby Bush’s term in office. What else was increased by a factor of 6 because of the increased national debt? The income of the ungodly greedy was also increased by a factor of 6 as no doubt campaign contributions to commie/conservative candidates increased six fold.

“Reagan, proved that deficits don’t matter”

Dick Cheney, 2002


How can the Party that increased the national debt by a factor of six to grant massive tax cut after massive tax cut to the ungodly greedy while they raise the social security tax 5 times on the middle class claim that they are the ones to “handle” the national debt problem that they in fact created? Like a vacuum cleaner salesman who throws dirt all over your carpet and than fails to clean it up, they want to sell you a vacuum cleaner that that not only doesn’t clean up the mess but spreads the dirt over the rest of the house. If I was the Republican Party I would never bring up the national debt that would have been history if Reagan hadn’t changed the course. We all know why the national debt was increased by a factor of 6, the national debt was increased six times to give massive tax cut after massive tax cut to the ungodly greedy.

But the commie/conservative narrative seems to be working with the public. How is that possible? Hitler knew how this is possible. Hitler said, “The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but the power of forgetting is enormous.” The success of commie/conservative narrative depends on American public enormous power of forgetting. It depends on the American people forgetting not only who the captain of the ship was when the ship of state’s course was changed to this course but who prevented others from correcting the course. In 1996 in effort to put America back on course Clinton raised the taxes on the ungodly greedy back to 39.6% not one Republican in the house or senate voted for the tax increase. The slight tax increase balanced the budget and led to 4 years of surpluses. As soon as baby Bush got in the tax cuts on the ungodly greedy started again as well as the deficits. The power of forgetting is indeed enormous.

Reagan name is associated with cutting taxes but not associated with raising taxes. The Reagan tax increase on the working poor and the middle class was $424 billion dollars this gave Reagan almost a ½ a trillion dollars to cover the massive tax cuts he gave the ungodly greedy. The $424 billion increase in social security taxes was put in the same pot as the income tax and counted as income. Reagan simply issued the social security trust fund IOUs (US Treasury Bonds) for the $424 billion social security tax increases and gave the money to the ungodly greedy in tax cuts.

Social security was designed as a pay as you go system and was never intended to have a trust fund. Those working would fund those that were retired social security. That was the way social security had worked for 50 years. But Reagan treated social security as a massive tax increase where the money taken in would not be needed for another 30 years. Baby Bush posed for a photo opportunity with the cabinet hold the $4 trillion dollars social security trust fund in US Treasury Bonds saying it was just worthless paper. Baby Bush tried to pull off the biggest heist in history $4 trillion in one photo opportunity, now you see now you don’t, just worthless paper and worthless promises from Reagan. The American people didn’t buy it if we don’t get paid neither does any other holder of a US Treasury Bonds and the ungodly greedy hold most of the US treasury bonds. US Treasury Bonds are supposed to be the safest investment in the world and this generation will demand payment of those $4 trillion in notes.

The National Debt was paid down to $998 billion when Reagan took office but it stood at two trillion eight hundred and fifty-seven million when he left office without adding the $424 billion social security tax increase. The actual Reagan deficit was three trillion two hundred and eighty one billion. Reagan more than tripled the National debt and for what? To give massive tax cuts to the ungodly greedy.

At a council meeting one night I told a councilman he was a faithful follower of the PLR. He looked a little surprised until I explained that PLR was someone who followed the Path of Least Resistance. To be sure most people are faithful followers of the PLR mankind has spent centuries inventing labor saving devices. Of course it is easier to plow a field with a tractor than a horse and plow. But it is just not in manual labor that we follow the PLR we also follow the PLR in our thinking as humans we want to expend the least amount of labor for the maximum amount of return, people are lazy by nature. It is a simple conservation of effort.

One of the most important discovers of the 20th century is seldom mentioned. We can all list what we think was the most important inventions of the 20th century, like cars, airplanes, televisions and computers but the fact that humans follow the PLR when thinking had far more implications than any of the listed discoveries. The key to successful propaganda is that people will follow the path of least resistance and not follow up on even the simplest of propaganda. Hitler was one of the first to understand that following the path of least resistance had geopolitical implications. People would not only die for propaganda, more importantly they would kill motivated by propaganda. Six million people died in WWII motivated by propaganda. In pre WWII Germany people found that it was much easier to allow the state to do your thinking, the path of least resistance. The most important elements of propaganda, according to Hitler is that it be simple, and repeated till the last person understands what you want them to understand.
___________________________________________________________________
“In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these on slogans until the last member of pubic understands what you want him to understand by your slogan.”

Hitler
___________________________________________________
One slogan was repeated over and over again during the 1980 Reagan presidential campaign. Reagan repeated that he would balance the budget, cut taxes, and increase military spending. It was certainly simple and it was repeated over and over again. The fact that it was impossible didn’t seem to bother people; few people deviated from the path of least resistance. When Reagan said I am going to cut my income (lower taxes), increase my spending (increase military spending) and pay off my debts (balance the budget) most people should have seen it as propaganda but the PLR is to believe it. Of course Reagan didn’t balance the budget, he raised social security taxes by 13% and he more than tripled the National debt. The path of least resistance saves effort but it trajectory of America from a responsible nation that was paying off its war debt to the biggest debtor nation in the world.