The Black Vault

I finally saw the movie "Once Upon A Time In Mexico" last night. Good movie.

One of the characters--played beautifully by Johnny Depp--is a quirky, rogue CIA agent based in Mexico. He has this habit of going to every dive in the area, ordering a dish called pork pibil with a shot of tequila and lime.

In one scene, he is at the table in a restaurant dining on his favorite dish. It is the best pork pibil he has ever had--far better than any of the numerous others he tasted. He concludes that in order to restore equality among the restaurants, this one should not be allowed to serve up such a vastly superior version of pork pibil.

After finishing the delicious meal, he exits through the kitchen and on his way out, proceeds to plant 3 bullets into the chest of the cook. Equality and justice served. Cold.


Upon seeing that, I couldn't help but draw a comparison between the cold-blooded CIA agent, his obsession with restaurant equality, and Obama's agenda to serve up "socio-economic justice" by assailing the wealthy.

Funny. America is touted as the land of opportunity, where we are all encouraged to follow our dreams and prosper. Yet, should anyone actually manage to succeed? They are immediately targeted for execution--so the less-successful can divvy up their spoils. Seems a little counterintuitive. To me, at least.

Does that mean you're an advocate of a flat tax?

I'm no economist but it seems to me that a flat tax is, at least, fair. I am guessing that 9% does not produce enough internal revenue to pay off the national debt. In that event, I would say that everyone should shoulder the burden with an increase in flat tax slowly over time (rather than just jumping into a high tax), and then steadily decreased after that once the debt is paid off. Of course it will take a balanced budget to accomplish that. People are often against tax hikes which is understandable.

What event of apocalyptic proportions would happen if we NEVER paid down the national debt?

Overcharge the budget and our grandchildern will be paying it off, but did Japan and Germany ever pay off the entire cost of damage of WW2?

Forgive our trespassers and those who trespass against us.

at1with0 wrote:Does that mean you're an advocate of a flat tax?

I'm no economist but it seems to me that a flat tax is, at least, fair. I am guessing that 9% does not produce enough internal revenue to pay off the national debt. In that event, I would say that everyone should shoulder the burden with an increase in flat tax slowly over time (rather than just jumping into a high tax), and then steadily decreased after that once the debt is paid off. Of course it will take a balanced budget to accomplish that. People are often against tax hikes which is understandable.

What event of apocalyptic proportions would happen if we NEVER paid down the national debt?

I like the idea of a flat tax with no exemptions or deductions. We could then fire the IRS except for the number of people necessary to perform collections.

With a flat tax I guess hundreds of thousands of newly unemployed people would be dumped into the job market. Not just IRS employees, but accountants too. A boat-load of people competely depend on an over-complicated tax system.

And considering that 50% of the people don't even pay taxes, a number like 9% or 10% would probably be plenty enough to run the government.

If everyone who was rich got there through their own hard work and ingenuity, you might have a point. I think the problem is that the gulf between the rich and the poor is so vast, and wealth is very often nothing more than a family business, with money passing hands from father to son, with only good fortune involved for the wealthy man's riches.

You should punish the rich because they can afford to be punished, and because the distribution of wealth is so out of proportion.

What is so wrong about taking more from those who have more to give? In a church, should a beggar be expected to donate the same as Donald Trump?

It's not as if there will not still be a monumental gulf between the Donald Trumps and the starving, homeless, sick, and dying.

Is it right that Trump has 15 cars to choose from while another is eating scraps from a bin, or refusing to go the doctors for an obvious health issue because the bill is just too much? Is this the world you're fighting for?

I hate to bring up religion, but is that what Jesus would have wanted?

Bringing up Jesus is not directly bringing up religion, imo.

at1with0 wrote:Bringing up Jesus is not directly bringing up religion, imo.

True, I just didn't want to make out I was playing the religion card as a way to score a cheap point. I just think sometimes, a country that wants to be referred as Christian, and "one nation under God" often wants a system that seems very unbiblical to me.

I would say that if the populace of any nation were "True" Christians, then things would be so much better, even though I consciously don't choose to be one of them.

humphreys wrote:What is so wrong about taking more from those who have more to give? In a church, should a beggar be expected to donate the same as Donald Trump?

The Church doesn't operate that way. The tithe is 10% across the board. The beggar with a dime should donate at least a penny. Donald Trump should donate his 10%.

Why is that not acceptable to you? Why should Donald Trump be expected to pay 75%, like the wealthy do in France?

Yeah, we can see that the Europeans have a GREAT handle on things, can't we. This country, thanks to Obama and his kind, is headed straight down the path of Greece, Spain, Italy, etc.