u/TreeLore61

​I’ve been following the recent discussions around wealth taxes, and while I agree with the direction Bernie Sanders is taking, I believe he is being far too generous. We don’t just need a wealth tax; we need to fundamentally restructure our entire system to prioritize American workers over the global corporate interests that have hijacked our economy.

​We have forgotten the era when we understood that corporations and the ultra-wealthy had a primary responsibility to the nation that gave them their success. History shows us that we once maintained a system that held the powerful accountable. Under FDR, we saw the implementation of highly progressive tax structures, with rates on the highest earners reaching as high as 75% or more to support the nation during crisis.

​Before the 1980s, the tax landscape was completely different. Back in the 1970s, citizens earning below $20,000 a year—the equivalent of approximately $172,000 in today’s money—were not taxed at all. I believe we need to return to that principle: today, any individual or family earning below $200,000 a year should be exempt from federal income tax. Furthermore, there was a societal understanding that necessities—like food, electricity, and basic utilities, including internet access—were not to be burdened by the same taxes as luxury goods. While the internet became accessible in our homes in the 1980s, it was later administrations, such as that of President Obama, that allowed for the taxation of these essential services.

​The Kennedy-era tax system is often cited as one of the most effective in our history, using targeted tax cuts to incentivize domestic investment, job creation, and employee benefits. Unfortunately, later policies began to dismantle these safeguards. President Nixon signed the Tax Reform Act of 1969, which began shifting away from the previous structures. This era saw economic instability, culminating in the recession of 1973–1975, which was the longest since the Great Depression.

​The shift toward our current, broken system accelerated under the Reagan administration. Through the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 and the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the top marginal tax rate was slashed from 70% down to 28%. These reforms granted massive conglomerates and billionaires the same tax benefits and write-offs originally intended for small businesses, allowing the largest corporations to shelter profits while the middle class bore a greater share of the burden.

​I propose a complete overhaul with a tiered system that actually reflects reality:

​Millionaires: A minimum 5% increase in taxes.

​Billionaires: A minimum 15% increase in taxes.

​Trillionaires: A minimum 25% increase in taxes.

​We must stop treating the wealthiest corporations and individuals as if their interests are identical to those of the American worker. We also have to acknowledge the historical shadow cast by industrialists of the early 20th century. Men like William Randolph Hearst used their media empires to demonize hemp—a direct competitor to their wood-pulp paper products—which led to the 1937 prohibition. This is the same kind of corporate manipulation we see today when billionaires push for legislation that shields their bottom lines.

​It is time to stop the "one-size-fits-all" tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy. We need a system where tax incentives are strictly tied to the well-being of the American worker and the security of our domestic economy, not just the profit margins of global billionaires.

​I’ve been a long-time follower of Colion Noir—I love his content and respect his perspective on 200% of things. However, there is one critical area in his latest video where I find myself in strong disagreement, and that is regarding the platform of the politician highlighted in his video running in Pennsylvania's 8th District who wants to disarm both citizens and the police.

​You can watch the video here: https://youtube.com/shorts/JxjB-KRmH8M?is=uz6O\_s88CtciuoXJ

​I actually agree with this politician on one thing: the police should be disarmed. However, I completely disagree with her—and stand 200% with Colion—that the citizenry should ever be disarmed.

​The entire point of the Second Amendment wasn't just to "keep us armed"—it was designed to ensure the people remain better armed than the government or the police. We are supposed to be the primary protectors of our communities. The police and military are only intended to be our backups—not the other way around.

​When a citizenry is better armed than the state, the government behaves itself. As James Madison argued in Federalist No. 46, the American people possess a unique advantage in being armed, serving as a "barrier against the enterprises of ambition." George Washington affirmed this in his First Annual Address, stating, "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined." Crucially, this "discipline" was never intended to be government-run indoctrination; it was a responsibility shared by parents and the local community. In the 1920s and 30s, schools across America hosted gun clubs to ensure our children were responsible and proficient. As a former Boy Scout, I learned that organizations like the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts were founded with the foundational belief that youth should learn to handle knives and firearms effectively—a partnership between parents and community to foster self-reliance and the ability to defend against criminals and invaders alike.

​We also have to be honest about the history of American policing. Police were not originally created to protect the individual citizen; they were established by states as a security force to protect the property of the wealthy and, in the South, to act as slave patrols. Today, this is underscored by the Supreme Court, which has ruled multiple times—in cases like Warren v. District of Columbia—that the police have no constitutional duty to protect specific individuals. Their duty is to the public at large, not to you or your family.

​We need to recognize the distinction between these entities: the US Marshals are federal, Sheriffs are elected county officials, and the police are state-created entities. The police do not need to be armed at all. We see this model work beautifully in nations like Switzerland and the Netherlands, where high rates of private firearm ownership coexist with effective, largely unarmed police forces. In these countries, citizens are heavily armed—in fact, the Netherlands is second only to America in gun ownership, with a vast variety of weapons in civilian hands. There, the police serve as backups to an armed citizenry when they stop criminals, not a force that dictates to them.

​Yet, in America, we do the opposite: we treat our own veterans—those who have proven their discipline and service—like liabilities. While the recent 2026 policy change allowing firearms on military bases was a positive step, it doesn't go far enough. Our military personnel should be allowed to carry their weapons with them at all times, ensuring they are always ready to protect our communities without needing to return to base. Even our postal workers, who were historically armed to protect the mail and served as a vital backup safety network, were eventually stripped of their ability to maintain that readiness.

​We’ve even lost our ability to buy back the weaponry our own tax dollars funded. Before the 1980s, when the military upgraded their gear, citizens were given the chance to buy the surplus equipment. That changed after the 1984 film Tank starring James Garner—a movie based on the real-life fear of a citizen taking a stand against corrupt local officials. The government was so terrified by the idea of an empowered populace that they pushed through legislation to ensure citizens could no longer buy back military-grade hardware.

​We do not need the Second Amendment destroyed; we need to re-evaluate our entire system. The politician mentioned in Colion's video is half right: disarm the police force. But she is dead wrong about disarming us. If we truly believe in our role as the ultimate protectors of our own society, we must recognize that the solution isn't more police power, but a return to the self-reliant, armed citizenship that made this country free in the first place.

​As Major Watson has already stated, every service member swears an oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That is the foundational obligation of their service, yet they are being told that fulfilling this oath—even when faced with a domestic tyrant—is a violation of "conduct" rules. How can an officer truly uphold the Constitution if they are legally gagged from speaking up for it simply because they are in uniform?

​The UCMJ, including Article 133, was codified in 1950 under the hysteria of the Red Scare. It was never intended to serve the Founding Fathers' vision of a military that answers to the Constitution; it was designed by a fearful government to suppress dissent. For 200 years, the American tradition did not include these sweeping muzzles on military speech. To suggest that a 1950s code takes precedence over the Founders’ intent is a betrayal of the very Constitution our soldiers swore to protect.

​Major Watson is not a lone outlier; he is a spark. If thousands of military members, recognizing their duty to the Constitution over the convenience of a regulation, were to stand up and call for the impeachment of a tyrant, the system could not sustain its suppression. They cannot arrest the entire military. If enough voices unite, the government is forced to listen.

​To Major Watson: Do not accept this fate. The Bruen standard provides a path to challenge the constitutionality of these reactionary codes. If you secure a legal team that understands constitutional history—rather than just military administrative law—there is a viable path to keeping your uniform and your career.

​It is time to dismantle the 1950s relic that keeps the military subservient to tyranny. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not the UCMJ. It is time for our service members to hold the government to that standard.

​"This is a perfect example of why we should be deeply concerned about the normalization of mass behavioral surveillance. We aren't talking about traffic enforcement anymore; we are talking about automated systems peering into private vehicles to flag benign behaviors like having a phone on a lap.

​

​Other nations, including various Asian and Muslim countries, have already recognized the danger and have taken a stand, refusing to allow these types of AI-driven camera systems. They value their privacy deeply—perhaps because they live in societies that are already overpopulated where personal space is scarce—and they recognize that AI systems are prone to errors that a human officer would never make. These countries have essentially said 'no' to this level of intrusion, recognizing it for the privacy violation it is, a sharp contrast to the path being taken in places like Australia, which serves as a warning for what some want to turn America into.

​

​We must remember the warning of Benjamin Franklin, who predicted this very struggle the moment we began letting government convince us to surrender our rights for the sake of protection: 'Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.' We are currently witnessing that trade-off in real-time.

​

​We should also be critical of how popular media constantly attempts to normalize this surveillance, portraying it as a necessary tool for 'fighting crime' or 'safety'—a false narrative designed to make us surrender our rights. We functioned perfectly well without constant, automated scrutiny. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has long recognized the vehicle as an extension of one’s home, a 'castle' that should be free from warrantless intrusion. Instead, we are being subjected to an 'Epstein-class' level of surveillance that demands we sacrifice our fundamental privacy for the sake of an unproven and profit-driven technological overreach.

​

​It is encouraging to see a growing movement of people here in America who refuse to accept this—citizens who are taking matters into their own hands by rejecting these cameras and the erosion of their privacy. The real 'Big Brother' element isn't just the ticket; it’s the automated, high-resolution scrutiny that removes any room for context or human discretion. When we allow infrastructure to be turned into a tool for constant, AI-driven monitoring, we aren't just 'improving traffic'; we are eroding the expectation of privacy that’s supposed to exist inside our own vehicles. We need to start asking: at what point does the 'cost' of safety become the total loss of our freedom to exist in public without being actively surveilled?"

​

​"This is a perfect example of why we should be deeply concerned about the normalization of mass behavioral surveillance. We aren't talking about traffic enforcement anymore; we are talking about automated systems peering into private vehicles to flag benign behaviors like having a phone on a lap.

​

​Other nations, including various Asian and Muslim countries, have already recognized the danger and have taken a stand, refusing to allow these types of AI-driven camera systems. They value their privacy deeply—perhaps because they live in societies that are already overpopulated where personal space is scarce—and they recognize that AI systems are prone to errors that a human officer would never make. These countries have essentially said 'no' to this level of intrusion, recognizing it for the privacy violation it is, a sharp contrast to the path being taken in places like Australia, which serves as a warning for what some want to turn America into.

​

​We must remember the warning of Benjamin Franklin, who predicted this very struggle the moment we began letting government convince us to surrender our rights for the sake of protection: 'Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.' We are currently witnessing that trade-off in real-time.

​

​We should also be critical of how popular media constantly attempts to normalize this surveillance, portraying it as a necessary tool for 'fighting crime' or 'safety'—a false narrative designed to make us surrender our rights. We functioned perfectly well without constant, automated scrutiny. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has long recognized the vehicle as an extension of one’s home, a 'castle' that should be free from warrantless intrusion. Instead, we are being subjected to an 'Epstein-class' level of surveillance that demands we sacrifice our fundamental privacy for the sake of an unproven and profit-driven technological overreach.

​

​It is encouraging to see a growing movement of people here in America who refuse to accept this—citizens who are taking matters into their own hands by rejecting these cameras and the erosion of their privacy. The real 'Big Brother' element isn't just the ticket; it’s the automated, high-resolution scrutiny that removes any room for context or human discretion. When we allow infrastructure to be turned into a tool for constant, AI-driven monitoring, we aren't just 'improving traffic'; we are eroding the expectation of privacy that’s supposed to exist inside our own vehicles. We need to start asking: at what point does the 'cost' of safety become the total loss of our freedom to exist in public without being actively surveilled?"

​

​

​

There is a common narrative in American politics that "starving" people into the workforce creates a thriving economy. This entire ideology is built on the **"Welfare Queen" myth**—a debunked stereotype from the '80s used to justify stripping away the autonomy of the poor. When we treat adult citizens like they cannot be trusted to manage their own lives, we actually sabotage the job market.

1. The "Cat Food" Lie and the Loss of Choice**

A major part of the Welfare Queen myth was the insulting claim that people were buying cat food to eat instead of tuna or meat.

The Manipulation: Politicians used this lie to claim that people were so "untrustworthy" that they couldn't be allowed to make their own choices. This was the justification used to pass laws that banned people from using assistance for **anything** other than specific food—including soap, shampoo, and even food for actual pets.

The Reality: By taking away the right to choose what they need to survive, the government stripped people of their dignity. You cannot land a professional job if you are denied the right to buy hygiene products or laundry detergent.

Proof: A Killer Stereotype: The History of the Welfare Queen Narrative

2. The European Success vs. The American Barrier**

While the U.S. restricts choice, countries like Norway, Germany, and Switzerland have proven that "Security is a Springboard."

Total Stability: In these countries, the state doesn't just provide food assistance; they often cover **rent, utilities, and even mortgages** for the unemployed.

The Result: Because these people aren't terrified of homelessness or sitting in the dark, they are **far more likely** to find high-paying, long-term careers.

Proof (Germany): Human Rights Watch: Protecting the "Minimum Subsistence Level" in Germany (2026)

American Evidence: Recent Brookings Institution research shows that tough work requirements and food restrictions do **not** boost employment; they simply push people into deeper poverty.

Proof (USA): Brookings/KUNR Report: SNAP Work Requirements Do Not Lead to Better Employment (2026)

3. Why Autonomy Lowers Unemployment**

Historical data and international trials show that when assistance programs allow for maximum autonomy, unemployment rates reach all-time lows.

Mental Bandwidth: When a person is trusted to feed their pets and keep their lights on, they have the "mental bandwidth" to focus on career growth.

The Economic Multiplier: For every $1 spent on SNAP/Food Stamps, the economy grows by $1.50 to $1.80 because that money supports local grocery stores and jobs.

Proof: USDA: The SNAP Multiplier and Economic Stimulus

The "Springboard" Effect: In the Ontario Basic Income Pilot, researchers found that when people had basic security, they didn't stop working; they used the money to get education and better-paying licenses.

Proof (Canada): Analysis of the Ontario Basic Income Pilot Findings (2026)

The Bottom Line

The "Welfare Queen" and "Cat Food" myths made us believe that stripping people of their rights would "force" them to be successful. Instead, it made them more desperate and less hirable.

Data from around the world—and right here in America—shows that when you respect a person's **right to survive with dignity**, you create a more successful and stable workforce. Security is not a handout; it is the foundation that allows people to go out and get a job.

TL;DR: The Welfare Queen myth used the "cat food" lie to take away people's right to choose their own necessities. Modern research from 2025 and 2026 proves that when the state covers food, rent, and utilities, people find jobs faster and stay at them longer. Taking away choice doesn't make people work; it makes them too desperate to succeed.