Brian Keith Robertson

9-8-7 + Unions = Prosperity for Everyone (1 of 3)

admin — Mon, 03 Sep 2012 19:43:24 +0000

“There is income inequality in America. There always has been. And hopefully, and I do say that, there always will be. Why? Because people rise to different levels of success based on what they contribute to society and to the marketplace. And that’s as it should be.”

Rick Santorum

Detroit, MI

Feb. 16, 2012

Is Rick Santorum suggesting that the American worker, who makes it possible for corporate America to make billions of dollars in profits every year, does not contribute as much to society as the corporate CEO? I agree that the average worker should not receive the same pay as the corporate CEO, but they should also not receive slave wages. Additionally, they should receive at least a portion of the profits. For example, imagine for a moment that I own a large corporation and that I employ 100,000 people in 37 states. Imagine further that I made $3 billion in profits last year. Would it be too much to ask me to take $1 billion of that money and divide it among the workers, whose hard work and dedication made it possible for my company to earn that $3 billion in profits? One billion dollars divided by 100,000 workers equals $10,000 per worker. Imagine what the worker can do with a $10,000 check at the end of the year. The other $2 billion would go to the shareholders. This is my vision for America.

“We believe in equal opportunities, not equal outcomes.”
Paul Ryan
V.P. Candidate
8/11/12

Allow me to rephrase this statement so that you will understand the Republican Party as I do.

“We believe that everyone should have the opportunity to help corporate American make money, but we do not believe that everyone should have the opportunity to share in the profits.”

“We believe that everyone should have the opportunity to succeed in life, but we do not believe that everyone should succeed in life.”

“We believe that everyone should have the opportunity to succeed in life, but we do not believe that everyone will succeed in life.”

The problem I have with this third one can be summed up in this one question, ‘What should we do with those who do not succeed in life?’ Not everyone can be as successful in life as Bill Gates, George Soros, and Donald Trump. They also cannot be as successful as Sean Hannity (est. net worth: $35 million), Neil Cavuto (est. net worth: $23 million) and Eric Bolling (est. net worth: $15 million). But, this does not mean that everyone cannot succeed. Under my economic plan even the less fortunate can succeed. In this case, I consider a $100,000 home (mortgage paid off) and a $5 million bank account at the time of retirement to be successful. I say this because I could easily retire on this. I would simply live off the annual interest I would make on the $5 million.

Rick Santorum and Paul Ryan are just two examples of how far to the right the Republican Party has gone. I cannot help but wonder if their hero, Ronald Reagan, would approve of such callousness.

If Mitt Romney becomes president he will create millions of jobs, in part, by reducing the corporate tax rate. But he will not force corporate America to share some of its profits with the worker. President Obama, on the other hand, will keep the corporate tax rate at 35%, which will continue to stifle job creation. He will then expand welfare even further than he already has, and continue to encourage the American people to apply for food stamps. In other words, Mitt Romney will create millions of jobs so that corporate America can once again make billions enslaving the American worker, but Barack Obama will make millions of people more dependent on government through the welfare and food stamps programs.

If I were president I would create millions of jobs by reducing the corporate tax rate. I would also force corporate America to share some of its profits with the worker. I would do this through my ‘9-8-7 + unions = prosperity for all’ plan, which is a variation of Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan. It means, 9% corporate tax rate, 8% individual income tax (payrole tax), 7% national sales tax.

9-8-7 + Unions = Prosperity for Everyone (2 of 3)

admin — Mon, 03 Sep 2012 19:23:57 +0000

Under the Republican Party’s economic system, known derisively as ’trickle-down economics’, corporate taxes are reduced in order to promote job growth but corporations are not forced to share their profits with the worker. As a result, only a small portion of corporate America’s earnings makes it down to the worker.

To put it another way, under the Republican Party’s economic system corporate America walks away with billion of dollars in profits every year, pays its CEO’s ten of millions of dollars in bonuses, but gives the average worker what can only be described as pocket change. This amounts to government-sanctioned slavery.

Under the Democrat Party’s economic system corporate taxes are raised in order to bring more money into Washington. That money is then distributed to the various government agencies which, in turn, further distribute that money. This is done every year with hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars. In other words, the money starts at the top with the U.S. Congress and trickles down to the people who need it. Unfortunately, as that money is trickling down to the people who need it, tens of billions of dollars are being lost through waste and fraud. We saw this not just with Solyndra and Ener1, but also with the Government Services Agency (GSA).

Can you see the problem? The problem is that it is all trickle-down economics. The Republican Party’s trickle-down economic system fails to get the money to the people who need it because of corporate greed. But the Democrat Party’s trickle-down economic system fails to get the money to the people who need it because of government ineptness.
My ‘9-8-7 + unions = prosperity for everyone’ plan would take the Republican Party’s trickle-down economic system and turn it into a steady flow economic system because it would ask unions to do what government ineptness cannot do and corporate greed will not do, get the money to the people who not only need it, but deserve it.

9-8-7 + Unions = Prosperity for Everyone (3 of 3)

admin — Mon, 03 Sep 2012 19:18:34 +0000

I don’t like the idea taxing a person’s income. I don’t like the earned income tax even for people who earn over $1 million per year. Instead, I would prefer a liquid assets tax or, in the alternative, a tax that is based on the size of a persons estate. This would allow the less fortunate among us, the 99%, to increase their standard of living and improve the quality of their lives. For example, if at the end of each tax year you own one home (material assets) that is valued at $175,000 and have a $10,000 personal bank account (liquid assets) you would owe no taxes beyond the 8% federal income tax and the 7% national sales tax (9-8-7 + unions = prosperity for everyone) that is part of my version of Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan.

On the other hand, if you own one home (material assets) that is valued at $475,000 and have a $5 million bank account (liquid assets) you would still owe no taxes beyond the 8% federal income tax and the 7% national sales tax (9-8-7 + unions = prosperity for everyone) that is part of my version of Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan. It is only when your personal bank account (liquid assets) exceed $5 million, or $7.5 million for married couples, that I would start taxing you, but only for the liquid assets. In other words, I will consider the first $5 million in liquid assets, or the first $7.5 million in liquid assets for married couples, to be either an emergency fund or a retirement fund. The purpose here is to help the less fortunate among us, the 99%, increase their standard of living and improve their quality of life.
Liquid assets in excess of $5 million, or $7.5 million for married couples, will be taxed at 25%. Liquid assets in excess of $15 million will be taxed at 40%. Liquid assets in excess of $20 million will be taxed at 55%, and liquid assets in excess of $100 million will be taxed at 100%.
Taxes on liquid assets will also increase for people who own two or more homes. For example, if you own two homes (non-rental) and have a personal bank account of $10 million, you’re liquid assets (annual income) will be taxed between 30% and 35%. In addition, the more valuable your home the greater the tax on your liquid assets so that people who own multi-million dollar homes will be taxed more than others. The reason for this is because the cost of living here in America is not such that you need a multi-million dollar home and a bank account that is in excess of $100 million in order to survive. Indeed, if you have a bank account that is in excess of $100 million you are not surviving. Instead, you are hoarding. It is this hoarding, among other things, that is making life difficult for the 99%.
If, at the end of each tax year you have a personal bank account (liquid assets) in excess of $100 million but don’t want to give that money to the government, then invest it in property (material assets), donate it to charity, to a project that benefit’s the less fortunate such as the handicap, or to a public works project that benefit’s your local community. In other words, use that money to help improve quality of life in America.
If you want to put your name on that donation or project, as people like Donald Trump do, then put your name on it. But don’t go down in history as a miser, a person who didn’t like to share his wealth, or use it to help improve quality of life for the less fortunate or for society in general.

The Occupy Wall Street Movement (1 of 4)

admin — Mon, 14 May 2012 03:08:34 +0000

The Occupy Wall Street Movement
Part 1 of 4
The Republican Party: They Really Don’t Care
How many times over the past three or four years did I try to get his attention on a particular issue? I am talking about Sean Hannity, one of the many voices of the Republican Party over there at Fox News. How many times did I try to get him to listen to what I had to say? And how many times did he ignore me?
No, I am not an Occupy Wall Street protester, someone like Harrison Schultz, who Sean Hannity can excoriate on national television because of the repugnant actions of a few. But I am also not a sycophant, one of the many people at Fox News who applauded him and told him how great he is because of what he did to Harrison Schultz this past Thursday (May 3, 2012). Instead, I am one of the many people throughout America who support Harrison Schultz, and people like him, but cannot afford to either contribute to their cause or participate in their protests. If Sean Hannity wants to have a debate with someone then why doesn’t he have a debate with me? If he wants to understand why people like Harrison Schultz are protesting then why doesn’t he ask me?
I am a 52-year-old man who was fired from my job at DS Waters of North America after 9 years of service. I was not fired because I had done something wrong. Instead, I was fired because DS Waters of North America was more concerned about its bottom line, its profit margin, than it was about me. This became evident when, after an investigation, even the unemployment office declared that I had done nothing wrong. Its official ruling was that I had been fired ‘without cause’. In other words, I am one of the 99% of Americans who have been screwed, and continue to be screwed, by corporate America, and who Harrison Schultz and his Occupy Wall Street movement are now fighting for. Needless to say, I have not been able to find a job since. It is not for lack of trying. Instead, it is because there are no jobs to find, especially for a 52-year-old man. No one wants to hire a 52-year-old man, especially in this economy.
My unemployment has since run out. I collected my final check back in early January of this year (2012). I have also depleted my savings, a 401K that was worth $13,000 before the early withdrawal penalty was deducted, trying to keep up on my mortgage, my auto loan (on a 2010 Ford Fusion I purchased back on April 30, 2010, three months before I was fired by DS Waters), and other bills. In other words, because I have been unable to find a job since being fired by DS Waters almost 2 years ago I no longer have any money to pay my bills, including my mortgage. As of May 16th I will be in default. How long before I lose my home?
Making matters worse is the fact that my mother, who suffers from dementia, has been living with me for the past several years. Since I can no longer pay my mortgage, she will soon have to go and live with my sister and her husband, who are also struggling. Does Sean Hannity honestly think I want this to happen? Does he honestly think I want to lose my home and force my mother to live with my sister and her husband? I am so desperate for a job that I even tried to start my own business. Unfortunately, nothing came of it. I couldn’t get it off the ground.
I am not asking for another hand out. Lord knows, I wouldn’t want to make the people over there at Fox News, Sean Hannity included, even angrier than they already are. Instead, I am asking that the American people understand what happens when the Republican Party gets its way. I want them understand just how little the Republican Party cares about people like me.
Last Thursday’s (May 3,2012) episode of ‘Hannity’ demonstrated once again that Sean Hannity, one of the many voices of the Republican Party over there at Fox News, doesn’t care about people like me. Indeed, his motto seems to be, ‘If you cannot make it on your own, if you have to get help from the community around you, then you don’t deserve to make it.’

The Occupy Wall Street Movement (2 of 4)

admin — Mon, 14 May 2012 03:00:59 +0000

The Occupy Wall Street Movement
Part 2 of 4
Americas Marxist Hypocrites
(Why the gap between rich and poor is so great)

“Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s”
Matthew 22:21

“The Congress shall have power to regulate commerce…among the several States.”
U.S. Constitution
Article I Section 8 Clause 3

In your pocket is a one dollar bill. Under the laws of this country, because you earned that one dollar bill you have the right to spend it in whatever way you feel will help increase your standard of living and improve the quality of your life. This is what capitalism is all about, giving people like yourself the opportunity to make your lives as productive and as prosperous as possible. However, though you have the right to spend that one dollar bill in whatever way you feel will help increase your standard of living and improve the quality of your life, you do not have the right to deface that one dollar bill or to rip it up into little pieces and then toss it into the waste can. If you do this, you will be guilty of a crime. Why? Because you do not own that one dollar bill.
It is our government, Caesar, who owns that one dollar bill because it is Caesar who designed and printed that one dollar bill. You have simply earned the right to spend that one dollar bill in whatever way you feel will help increase your standard of living and improve the quality of your life. The problem is that the number of one dollar bills that are available to you is limited. They are not limited because of Caesar, our government. Rather, they are limited because of the wealthiest among us, who are hoarding them.
Shouldn’t Caesar, our government, be allowed to do something about this? As the owner of those one dollar bills shouldn’t Caesar be allowed to put a limit on how many of those one dollar bills a person can possess at any one time? In other words, shouldn’t Caesar, our government, be allowed to invoke the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution in order to prevent people from hoarding its money?
I am asking this question not just because of a belief on my part that Caesar, our government, should invoke the Commerce Clause in this case, but also because I need you to understand that the problem, despite what Democrats keep telling us to the contrary, is not capitalism. Neither is it the Republican Party, which does tend to favor the wealthy over the poor. Instead, the problem is the Democrats, who jump at the opportunity to invoke the Commerce Clause when it will give them more control over our lives, but shy away from it when it will give us more control over our lives. In this case, it will give us more control over our lives by giving us access to a greater portion of the country’s wealth. To understand how, consider the following:
Every time I turn around I hear Democrats whining about conservatives like the Koch brothers, who each have an estimated net worth of $25 billion, but say nothing about liberals like Warren Buffett, who has an estimated net worth of $44 billion, and George Soros, who has an estimated net worth of $22 billion. So, instead of talking about the Koch brothers, let us talk about Warren Buffett and George Soros. What reason would these two men have for needing that much money? What reason would anyone have for needing that much money?
The cost of living here in America is not such that you need $44 billion in order to survive. Neither is it such that you need $22 billion. In fact, utilizing the language of the Occupy Wall Street protesters, if you were to take away 99% of Warren Buffett’s $44 billion fortune so that only 1% of it remained it would still be more than what is needed to survive. It would still be too much.
One percent of $44 billion is $440 million. If I manage to live another 48 years, to the ripe old age of 100, I would not be able to spend $440 million. I would not be able to spend even one-tenth of that amount, $44 million. Why? Because I am not the type of person who needs a home that takes up an entire city block. Neither am I the type of person who needs to drive around in a hummer or a Bentley. Instead, I am the type of person who enjoys the modest lifestyle. So, I could easily live out the remaining years of my life on $10 million. Indeed, based on my current lifestyle I could even live out the remaining years of my life on $5 million. So, what reason would Warren Buffett have for needing $44 billion? And what reason would George Soros have for needing $22 billion?
If Caesar, our government, would invoke the Commerce Clause and put a limit on the amount of money a person can possess at any one time, it would prevent this from happening. It would prevent people like Warren Buffett, George Soros and yes, even the Koch brothers, from hoarding all of that money. It would also give us, the less fortunate, access to that money so that we can finally get some control over our lives. So, why doesn’t Caesar, our government, do this? More to the point, why don’t the Democrats do this? The answer, again, is because they don’t want to do this. They don’t want us to get control over our lives. Instead, they just want us to keep relying on government…on them.
You need to understand that even the most liberal of Democrat‘s, the most lunatic of lefties, the most Marxist of Marxists, are not opposed to capitalism. That is, they are not opposed to ‘them’ benefiting from capitalism. Instead, they are opposed to us, the less fortunate, from benefiting from capitalism. We see this not just with the insanely wealthy, people like Warren Buffett and George Soros, but also with the super wealthy, people like
Actor Tom Hanks: Estimated Net Worth: $350,000,000
Singer/Actress Barbra Streisand: Estimated Net Worth: $340,000,000
Hip Hop Mogul Russell Simmons: Estimated Net Worth: $325,000,000
Singer/Actress Madonna: Estimated Net Worth: $325,000,000
Singer Bruce Springsteen: Estimated Net Worth: $200,000,000
Actor Robert DeNiro: Estimated Net Worth: $185,000,000
Actor George Clooney: Estimated Net Worth: $160,000,000
Actor Sean Penn: Estimated Net Worth: $150,000,000
Singer Bon Jovi: Estimated Net Worth: $125,000,000
Actress Jane ‘Hanoi Jane’ Fonda: Estimated Net Worth: $120,000,000
These 10 people are among the most liberal of Democrats, the most lefty of lefties, the most Marxist of Marxists who are always fuming about this Satanic, dragged up from the bowels of hell economic system called capitalism and its evil, greedy conservative supporters. They are also, because of this Satanic, dragged up from the bowels of hell economic system called capitalism, among the most wealthy Marxists in the country.
Why does Marxist Tom Hanks need all of that money? Why does he need $350 million when even one-tenth of that amount would be more than enough? And why does Marxist Jane ‘Hanoi Jane’ Fonda need all of that money? Why does she need $120 million when even one-tenth of that amount would be more than enough? In other words, how can these people, who are so outspoken in their opposition to capitalism, act like a bunch of capitalists? How can they believe so fervently in spreading the wealth while at the same time hoarding the wealth? The answer, again, is because they are not opposed to capitalism. They are opposed to capitalism for us. And they are not opposed to hoarding the wealth. They are opposed to us hoarding the wealth.
Think of it this way, when we fail to pay our taxes we are thrown in prison. But when someone like Tim Geither does it he is given a pass. Why? Because he is a Democrat. When we take advantage of inside information to make money on the stock market we are thrown in prison. But when someone like Nancy Pelosi does it she is given a pass. Why? Because she is a Democrat. When we go out and murder someone we are thrown in prison. But when someone like the late Ted Kennedy does it (Mary Jo Kopechne) he is given a pass. Why? Because he is a Democrat. And when we go up to a woman and grope her we are charged with sexual assault. But when someone like former President Bill Clinton does it he is give a pass. Why? Because he is a Democrat. In other words, just because Democrats want us to be dependent on government doesn’t mean they have to be dependent on government.
Other Marxists who are outspoken in their opposition to capitalism except when it applies to them are:
Actor Alec Baldwin: Estimated Net Worth: $65,000,000
Actor Matt Damon: Estimated Net Worth: $65,000,000
Activist Michael Moore: Estimated Net Worth: $50,000,000
Actress/Model Elle MacPherson: Estimated Net Worth: $45,000,000
Actress Eva Longoria: Estimated Net Worth: $35,000,000
Please understand that, with the exception of Alec Baldwin and Matt Damon, whose wealth I believe is starting to become excessive, I am not opposed to these 5 people acquiring this much wealth. Instead, I am opposed to them acquiring this much wealth through capitalism while pretending to hate capitalism.
Finally there are those idiots over there at MSNBC, those Marxist foot soldiers who help propagate this myth that capitalism is evil while neglecting to mention that even they are benefiting from it.
MSNBC TV Personality Chris Matthews (Hardball with Chris Matthews): Estimated Net Worth: $16,000,000 (Note: Chris Matthews’ annual salary, according to my Google search, is $5,000,000)
MSNBC TV Personality Rachel Maddow (The Rachel Maddow Show): Estimated Net Worth: $12,000,000
MSNBC TV Personality Ed Schultz (The Ed Show): Estimated Net Worth: $11,000,000
MSNBC TV Personality Lawrence O’Donnell (The Last Word): Estimated Net Worth: $8,000,000
MSNBC TV Personality Al Sharpton: Estimated Net Worth: $5,000,000
This is why the gap between rich and poor is so great. It is why the majority of American households are struggling. And it is why a large percentage of us are forced to rely on the government. It is not because of capitalism. And it is not because of the Republican Party. It is not even because we are lazy, as some Republicans have suggested. Instead, it is because of the Democrats, who want to keep the majority of this country’s wealth, the benefits of capitalism, confined to the few so that people like me will have to continue relying on our government…on them.
In conclusion I would like to say this, the wealthiest 25% of American households, which includes all of those Marxists I mentioned above, own 87% of the nations wealth. This leaves just 13% for the rest of us, who represent the other 75% of American households. This is not fair. If Caesar, our government, would invoke the Commerce Clause and put a limit on how much money an individual can possess at any one time, it would give the rest of us, the other 75% of American households, access to a greater portion of this country’s wealth. This, in turn, will help us finally get control of our lives so that we will no longer have to rely on Caesar, our government.

The Occupy Wall Street Movement (3 of 4)

admin — Mon, 14 May 2012 02:49:03 +0000

The Occupy Wall Street Movement
Part 3 of 4
The Pigs of Capitalism
Multi-millionaires acting as though they understand how it feels to be us in this economy. They have no idea what it is like to be us. They have no idea what it is like to lose everything you have, to struggle to keep what little you do have, or to work for minimum wage (slave wages) while knowing that your paycheck will not cover all of the bills. It is like drowning in slow motion. Each month finds you further and further behind in your bills. Each month finds you drowning more and more in debt. Not one of those multi-millionaires over there at Fox News has any idea what this is like. They are:
Sean Hannity: Estimated Net Worth: $35,000,000
Greta Van Susteren: Estimated Net Worth: $35,000,000
Neil Cavuto: Estimated Net Worth: $23,000,000
Eric Bolling: Estimated Net Worth: $15,000,000
Geraldo Rivera: Estimated Net Worth: $12,000,000
Megyn Kelly: Estimated Net Worth: $5,000,000
Kimberly Guilfoyle: Estimated Net Worth: $5,000,000
Capitalist pigs? No. Pigs of Capitalism, people who cannot seem to get enough, and have little sympathy for those among us who have nothing, and are even suffering because of them. For example, Kimberly Guilfoyle and Megyn Kelly could take some time off until the economy improves so that someone less fortunate can have their jobs. Sean Hannity*, Greta Van Susteren, Neil Cavuto, Geraldo Rivera, and Eric Bolling could retire altogether. But they don’t. Why? Because they don’t care. Not one of them cares.
So, not only are we, the 99%, being screwed by corporate America, we are also being screwed by all of those multi-millionaires over there at Fox News. This is why Harrison Schultz and his Occupy Wall Street movement is protesting. It is also why I support him.
*Sean Hannity actually has two jobs, one of which is a radio show. So, he could easily give his job at Fox News to someone else, someone who actually needs a job, and still maintain his standard of living. But he refuses. As a result, at least one person in America is suffering because of Sean Hannity.

The Occupy Wall Street Movement (4 of 4)

admin — Mon, 14 May 2012 02:43:47 +0000

The Occupy Wall Street Movement
Part 4 of 4
How To Spread The Wealth
The answer to the problem I just laid out is not as simple as you might think. Yes, putting a limit on the amount of money a person can possess at any one time will make more money available to those among us, the 99%, who are less fortunate. However, making that money available to them is one thing, actually getting it to them is quite another.
In order to show you how to do this, in order to show you how to get all of that extra money to the 99% who actually need it, I need a whiteboard and approximately 10 minutes of your time. In other words, I need access to a news organization like Fox News. Unfortunately, despite repeated attempts on my part, the people at Fox News refuse to grant me this time. Can you understand now why we are always saying that ’Fox Lies’?
Fox News keeps putting itself out there as ’Fair and Balanced’, yet it refuses to give voice to people like me. That is, it will give you the argument from the perspective of the extreme left and the extreme right but never from the center, from people like me. In this case, it gave you the argument on how to spread the wealth from the perspective of the extreme left and the extreme right but not from the center, not from me. What is ’fair and balanced’ about this?
Instead of occupying wall street, perhaps we should occupy Fox News until they start allowing people like me to give the argument from our perspective.