How to Save America

In the 1950s, the average worker made maybe $10,000/year, after deductions. The maximum salaries were capped (taxed at 100%) at $400,000/year after deductions.

Thus, giant paychecks were limited to what 40 average workers could make. If you took home what 41 people could make, then you would have that extra person taxed out of your pay, because you could be employing that person instead of stealing it from the company.

If the average worker makes $50,000 now, then 40 of those workers would make $2,000,000/year.

So how about if our new political party proposes a $2,000,000/year cap for all Americans - from the fry cook who wins the lottery, to the Koch Brothers. Everyone shares in the sacrifice to help America on the path to recovery.

A cap would affect all Americans - not the rich. There would be no claw-back of cheaply-taxed booty. They would just have to pay 100% tax on their annual income over $2,000,000 like the rest of us. Shared sacrifice.

So I was talking to a Tea Party friend about capping salaries like this, at $2,000,000. I said that salaries had to be regulated like this because the CEOs are being immoral and are stealing profits that could be employing people. She asked, "But who gets to set the standard for morality?"

I had no answer then, but I do now: "I get to set the standard. You do. We all do. We are the government. We are the governors. It's true that you can't trust the government to do the right thing nowadays, because they're looking out for themselves and their campaign contributors and their buddies in Corporate America. The people in Washington and their lobbiest friends and their megaphones in the press are not representing us; we're not stuck with them; the Framers wanted us to keep an eye on them and we can change them. We shouldn't throw up our hands and say 'you can't trust the government - give it to private industry.' That's what they WANT us to do. But WE are the government. The Constitution says so. We're not stuck with those idiots in DC."

The Media Is Liberal But Not Nearly As Liberal As It Thinks

The mainstream media has been brainwashed into thinking that it is "Liberal", and so it has fewer Liberals in its lineup of guests on political interview shows. If there were 3 people at the table: Media, Republican, and Liberal, the Republican would complain that it is unfair, "Because it's two against one! The Liberal can leave, or I'm outta here, and you two can be all chummy!"

This is a debate tactic wherein you hint that the impartial judge shares your opponent's point of view, and the judge then compensates for it by being more "centrist".

And so the debate judge would be less likely to side with the sensible argument, even though the judge has personally reasoned it out, and it has passed the smell test.

Of course, if you had a sensible argument, there would be no need to sway a sensible judge. And thus, today's debate on what's "sensible".

"Some say endless war and vilifying your neighbor will make the future better for our children. Some disagree, and think that sound fiscal/trade/tax policies are the way to fix America's problems. The endless debate continues..." -This is your Mainstream Media today.