Friday, December 05, 2008

The boy, as a Dictator

As grandpa and I were piling wood that he had spent the day splitting and quartering up in the woodshed I began talking about what he had told me to think over. And as grandpa listened patiently here is what I said.

“Grandpa, the very first thing I’d do if given the role of absolute dictator for a day is take a good look at our Constitution. I would eliminate three amendments and modify a fourth amendment. The amendments I would eliminate are the 16th, 17th, and the 26th amendments. I would modify the 22nd amendment.

The reason I’d eliminate the 16th amendment is verily simple. The Constitution declares us as a nation of people not a nation divided up into classes. That is what that amendment does, divides society up into three classes as the tax has been imposed upon the people. Tell me that the politicians don’t take advantage of this when seeking election or reelection. In fact, the two major political parties have been defined by some along this division of the people.

It no longer serves its intent and purpose of its passage. It was passed upon the promise that it would only affect the very rich. That no longer is true.

My main complaint though is that it gives the government the right to invade the privacy of the people. It is none of the government’s business of how much money we earn or even how we earn our income. The government has no more business of knowing of our economic affairs than does our nosy next door neighbor.

Another complaint I have with it is the fact that government does not treat the people in a just manner with it. Furthermore, it be cannot be declared it treats the people in a fair manner. It is discriminatory and biased in how it treats people. Because of this, taxes are higher than they need to be.

As it is set up now, a person works to take care of the needs of the government before he can take care of his own family. How can that abide by the principle that our government is a government “for the people” as Mr. Lincoln said it was?

Since when did the government have the ability to determine what the needs of the people are? As you have taught me, grandpa, we each are individuals and as individuals have different needs. Taxes should be imposed in such a manner that each individual can satisfy his needs first then satisfy the needs of government. Government should recognize that a man’s family is always the first priority in his life not his second. The income tax forces a person to put his family’s needs second to the needs of the government.

We, the people, must remember that we fought a war and declared our independence from a rule and one of the reasons for it was taxation. We, the people, must also remember the concept of "no taxation without representation." We must remind our representatives that from this concept that is why we elect them, to protect the people from being overtaxed and that doesn't allow for the concept of affordability in the determination of taxation. That is their primary role in government. That would be one reason that there is a clause in the Constitution stating that all bills of budgetary issues must originate in the House of Representatives.

We must remind our representatives that they were elected to represent all of the people that are in their district. We must remind them that they were not elected to just represent the poor. We must remind them that they were not elected just to represent the middle class. Nor were they elected to represent just the rich of their district. Most important is the fact that we need to remind them that they were not elected to place the needs of government above the needs of the people who elected them. We need to remind our government that the income tax betrays the very foundation of its founding.”

Grandpa, as he threw the last chunk on the wood pile, just smiled and said, “you have spoken well, boy, now let’s see if the people will agree with you, shall we?


Gayle said...

Oh dear Lord! There you go again, trying to make me think! LOL!

Sorry about not being around more often, my friend, but I've been very busy and still am.

Regarding whether the people agree or not, well, this people does not. I don't want the Constitution messed with, period! Once conservatives start messing with it for whatever reason, then liberals have the right to mess with it too, and before you know it, it won't even resemble what was first written. There's simply too much danger in that.

I realize my answer isn't exactly what one would call eloquent, but I've been told I'm pretty down to earth. :)

dcat said...


dcat said...

Reminds me of the stupid atheist protesters for the sign in WA State! LOL AWAAAA free speech!

Hey griper this is after all your place. It's like going into your home and only invited comments are allowed.

tweetey30 said...

This is just a wow post Griper. You have hit this one dead on the head in the nail... I like how you came up with the answer to the questions and thoughts.. Gayle is right you are making me think at 5 in the morning. Yikes but this is my time to visit before bed. I have been home from work for a an hour now..

The Griper said...

you need to remember that this is just an exercise of thought. regardless of what changes we'd like to make in our government we can't do it on our own say so. as i said it would take a ruler who was an absolute dictator to put into place the things we'd like to change.

that is one of fun things that goes with political arguments and one reason people enjoy it.

BB-Idaho said...

Guess my comment on the previous was lost to the vacuum of cyberspace. Essentially, I agree wtih Gayle; if dictator, I would reinstate the constitution and resign. 1. It works quite well..and 2. Most dictators don't die in bed!!

The Griper said...

true, BB, most dictators do not die in bed. but as my post said, you only get a day to make any changes. and i'd say most people would make some changes or else everyone would be in agreement instead of butting heads all the time.

dcat said...

And those that don’t agree would lose theirs! I get ya! :p

OT: NOT for the bail out and I will never buy from Michigan ever! Fords are: "FOUND ON THE ROAD DEAD TO ME TO THIS DAY!"
GMC is no better and never delt with that co. either.

BB-Idaho said...

Regarding the 16-17th Amendments,
only Utah rejected both. It was a very Mormon state at the time (now its 'quite' Mormon..), and one ponders their reasons.

The Griper said...

a good question, BB. but any answer would only be speculation so let's speculate. the Mormons have always venerated the past. ancestry is a big part of what they count on and live by. so, i'd guess that would have a big part of the reasons, respect of the past. it is an interesting question tho.

The Griper said...

here is a site that might give some insight to their thinking.

then if you click on his name it takes you to his personal site.

BB-Idaho said...

I recall that site (holy deja ju!) from more than a year ago...don't recall who sent me there. I agree, it may be the traditional conservative values, certainly more rural in the early 1900s. There was a time back when the US was more urban vs rural, agro vs mfg (especially the danged railroads!), simplicty vs sophistication, populism, the grange, Bryan's 'Cross of Gold'..figuratively stuck in our
political conciousness to this day. ..and I'm old enough to miss the days. :)

The Griper said...

yup, me too. wonder if that isn't a mixed blessing tho. we have advanced tremendously yet it seems we have lost so much too.

maybe deep down that was the hidden motive of my posts, a rememberance of times past and what it had to offer even if we do consider the hardships of those days.


Words of Wisdom of my visitors

Grab This Widget

Gas Buddy

Search for gas prices by US Zip Code


Design by Amanda @ Blogger Buster