Home
There are few things I enjoy as much as a good conspiracy theory. The upcoming election in the United States will be fascinating because there is a high probability we will find out if there are any hidden puppet masters running the United States. That would happen if, for example, Obama is clearly ahead in the polls in November but somehow loses the election. I consider both of those outcomes likely.


Obama's tax plan involves taking money from the presumed puppet masters (rich people and corporations) and divvying it up among the people he hopes will vote for him (the masses). The only way that approach could fail with voters is if there really are puppet masters and they really are determining who gets to be president.


Fasten your seatbelt.

 
Rank Up Rank Down Votes:  +9
  • Print
  • Share
  • Share:

Comments

Sort By:
Jun 13, 2008
For the last two terms they've been moonlighting as monkey wranglers rather than puppet masters.
 
 
Jun 13, 2008
Go puppetmasters! Obama doesn't want to just raise taxes on those making over $250k. He would also almost double capital gains taxes. A lot of people pay capital gains who are making well under $250k.

If you want less of something, tax it. Capital gains taxes are a tax on investment. Bad idea!
 
 
Jun 13, 2008
The monkeys are out early today...
 
 
Jun 13, 2008
Slap D Monkey wrote:

"Then look at something like a flat tax with bare-bones deductions, or even no deductions at all. If you make $30,000 a year or less, you pay X% to the government no matter what. .........No tax shelters. No deductions. If you earn it, you pay it. Period."

What a dumb idea. I certainly wouldn't support that.

Signed,
CPA
 
 
-1 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 13, 2008
"The only way that approach could fail with voters is if there really are puppet masters and they really are determining who gets to be president."

I think you have failed to notice that "the masses" are stupid and do not tend to do what is considered by the non-stupid people as in their best interest (ie, getting more money or keeping more money instead of paying taxes). I think logic is one of the things that does not drive people to vote.
 
 
Jun 13, 2008
Ok, lets tax the corporations. Wait a minute, one of their jobs is to collect taxes and pass them onto the government. You say, that is not true corporations pay taxes.

In a sense corporations have to make a profit and therefore cover the expense of paying taxes. As corporate taxes go up corporations pass the tax increase along to their customers in higher prices. In a sense corporations just collect taxes from their customers and that means you and me are being taxed indirectly.

So, when corporate taxes are raised it is just a hidden method of passing tax increases onto us.

If you think corporations are not tax collectors then I suggest you give it more that a moment of thought. The puppet masters are going to get your money for their schemes one way or another.
 
 
-2 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 13, 2008
I wonder what I would do if I was super rich and had the possibility to influence the election. I don't think rich people are more evil than anyone else, and it makes sense to protect your own and your families interests. If I was Buffet-rich, I might not care, but if I only had a billion or two, and I might suddenly loose a couple of hundred millions, I wouldn't rule out considering semi-legal ways of tipping an election to my advantage. Especially if I though my candidat actually was the best option. Why trust the money-hungry masses?

That said, I would easily stage a public hanging of those who tried to influence an election that way.
 
 
Jun 13, 2008
Which is more likely - that the overwhelmingly Democrat news media that produce the polling data will structure the questions and spin the resulting data such that a Democrat will do better than a Republican, or that they will denounce all inner feelings of loyalty to what they strongly believe in, and produce totally objective polling results?
 
 
+1 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 13, 2008
I don't know who said one that the question is not am I paranoid, but am I paranoid enough ?

The "Puppet Masters" have been at this alot longer and are much better at it than you think.

Both candidates are obviously their man !

 
 
-10 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 13, 2008
Hello, Rosie here. It's the puppet masters! They'll rig the election for a McCain victory just like they brought down Building 7 !!!
 
 
Jun 13, 2008
If the puppet master premise was really true, why wouldn't these rich individuals and powerful corporations just put out two candidates who seem to be polar opposites so that the public thinks they have free will in deciding their leader. All the time these dark forces are laughing because we are in such a frenzy over how our puppet will look. I bet if we saw the candidates with their shirts off they would have huge Illumanati tattoos on their back.

http://www.notthisgod.blogspot.com
 
 
+13 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 13, 2008
Hi Scott,

Your argument about puppet masters based on taxes doesn't fly. You are forgetting that McCain is promising to lower all tax brackets. If you believe that people only vote on tax policy and for more money in their own pocket, then McCain has everybody's vote.

Obama's tax plan is to increase taxes for people earning over $250K/year. That is a very small percentage of the tax base. I do not earn over $250K/year and I will not be voting for Obama. There are things far more important than taxes to most people's well being.

McCain's small business tax breaks are going to benefit lots of small business owners who earn well below $250K/year. Obama isn't matching it with anything good.

Since you are in the puppet master income range you'll have to let us know how the meetings go.

dsg
 
 
+8 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 13, 2008
Obama's plan - and for that matter virtually every other tax plan - involves making people *think* he's taking money from rich people and corporations and divvying it up amongst everyone else.

But who are rich people? Dick Gephardt defined it as a family of four making over $72,000 a year. Now, that might be true in Branson, Missouri, but try living on that anywhere near Boston, New York, or Los Angeles -- even as a single person, you're hardly living like a king.

And who are corporations? Remember, corporate taxes are defined (very basically) as a percentage of Revenue Minus Expenses. But *your* taxes, on your wages, are defined as a percentage of "revenue," with only certain exceptions (deductions) allowed. The only explanation I can think of for this disparity is that, under GAAP, is because a company's "revenue" may not equal a company's "cash" due to, say, accounts receivable/payable and the like.

There is also the issue of inflation, which is effectively a tax on working people. The current inflation numbers are completely fictional because they're not reflecting food and energy costs.

The bottom line is this: if you are working your butt off and living from paycheck to paycheck for a living, from a marginal utility perspective, it would be best for you to pay no taxes at all. I pay over $12,000 a year in income and payroll taxes (somewhere between one-fifth and one-fourth of my income); that's a *down payment on a house* or *a nice used car* or some other such very useful thing to me. That's a couple trans-Atlantic flights to the rich CEO. I sure don't feel like I am getting my $12K worth. And keep in mind that doesn't even count all the other little taxes I pay here and there (energy, gas, sales, airline fees, etc.).

When all is said and done, the government is taking between 1/3 and 1/2 of what you earn, *even if you are struggling*. So don't go around whining for them to fix things -- the first order of business should be GETTING OUR STINKIN' MONEY BACK!!
 
 
+9 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 13, 2008
I disagree with the "puppet masters" premise, although I do worry that tampering with vote counts is all too easy now that electronic voting machines are more widely used. This is why it's important to have an independent, verifiable paper trail for all e-voting systems.

If Obama were to lose the election in a particular state despite polls that say he should've won, then the most likely explanation would be that voters wanted to be seen as Obama supporters but for some reason didn't actually vote as they claimed.
 
 
 
Get the new Dilbert app!
Old Dilbert Blog