All Sides of America’s Politics

Tax Issue (Part One)

It was approximately six months since President Trump had been in the office. One night I had an unusual dream. In my dream, I was walking on the streets of New York City and was approaching the Trump Tower. Suddenly something bizzare happened. It seemed like heavy rain started falling -- only I wasn't wet. 'One-hundred-dollar cash bills fell from sky like heavy rain, flooded all entire streets, pile up to my shin.' I heard people's screams of joy. They ran into crowds, enthusiastically swept the cash bills and put in their bags. I also grabbed some of the money that was falling and put in a bag until it was full. With my greed, I was reluctant to leave the street when there were still plenty of money falling from the sky but I had no other way to collect the money.

Finally, I had to decide to leave. I walked into a major retail name store nearby and started shopping and enjoying myself. This was the first time in my life, I did not have to look on price tags. I bought whatever I wanted.

After my shopping was done, I walked to the cashier. I put all the merchandises on the counter and poured out of my bag all my newfound cash. After all of the merchandises was rung up on the cash register, the cashier took one bills.

She looked at the bill, flopped it back and forth and looked again and again. As I thought that she took time too long, I agitatedly opened my mouth asking -- "is anything wrong with the money?" The cashier replied -- "you can't use these bills to pay." I was devastated and confused. With my anger, I yelled at her

-- "Why!? Why can't I?! Look! Look outside the window. People were competing each other, putting those bills in their pockets. This cash must be real! Why can't I use them to pay!?"

The cashier explained very calm -- " look on the bill," she showed me the one in her hand -- "it is Donald Trump's face on the bill. These bills are not yet accepted for payment. The Government printed them out too early".

At this point, I did not wait to hear anymore the explanation. With anger, I yelled with loud voice all the way while walking to the door -- "Bogus! Government Bogus! If I know I can't use those bills, I would not waste my time to help the City's waste-paper street cleaning."

At the door, just about to push the door opened, the cashier's loud voice stopped me -- "Wait! Wait a minute! Perhaps you can use these bills. These bills are accepted to pay for only Trump's products ... "

"Where can I find Trump's products?" I asked.

"You have to go to White House to buy Trump's products over there," the cashier said.

I see myself on the Democrat side. But in my life, I have known more Republican supporters than Democrats. I realize that we get along with each other, although they accept me on the opposite side. The Republican supporters I know have 90 percentage as true blue bloods. The only part in politics that turns them to be a strong red -- is the tax issue.

Like Democrats, the Republican supporters I know are polite and peaceful -- and they are very generous in helping others. However, there is the disagreement of the generosity, including how they want government spending their tax money. This is the main reason which separates Democrats and Republicans.

In general Democrats help everyone who looks 'deplorable'. I used to ask disappointedly a long time friend who supported Democrats -- 'you donate money to help people you don't know just because they look deplorable but you have known me for long time, I have never received help from you -- don't I look deplorable enough?'

The Republican supporters I know prefer to help specific people they know, people they like and people they love. For example, they want most of their income to help their family (first) : wife and children, closed friends and lovers, rather than paying high taxes to help people they don't know. In addition, the person they choose to help is not necessary to look deplorable. This is the same idea as the President Trump's campaigning slogan of the 'America First'.

When Democrats say that they support homosexual people, they mean theoretically 'all' homosexuals in general. Republicans, however, are more specific in the term -- 'homosexual'. They are more realistic that people would not like 'all' or dislike 'all' homosexual people. Republicans can only accept particular homosexual person.

When Democrats say that they support immigrants, they mean 'all' immigrants. Republicans, however, like some groups of immigrants (or races) while they may dislike the others.

Tax-increased policy is the Democrats Party's failed policy. It is to push away the 90 percentage blue-blood Republican supporters unable to swing their votes to Democrats. As consequence, to help the Republican Party wins election, these 90 percentage blue-blood Republican supporters have to keep promoting anti immigrants, anti homosexuals, and disbelieve in environmental pollutions, for just one issue -- they can not afford to pay any higher tax rate.

It's misunderstandable to believe that Democrat supporters would love paying high taxes. Like Republican supporters, in reality no one wants to pay because everyone loves to get paid. Only the nature of Democrat supporters are peaceful people. They want to see all people come and live together peacefully. By using aggression and anti messages in the Republicans' political campaigns is to scare many Democrat supporters unable to swing their votes to Republicans. In fact, there might be a small group of people (who often have loud and aggressive voices during elections) vote for Republicans based on the 'anti' policy. With their loud voices, they successfully convince Republican politicians to believe that aggression is the only way to win the Republican tickets. These people try to paint negative image for the Republican Party to scare peaceful Democrat supporters in joining the Republican Party because they want to entirely occupy the Republican Party as their territory.

Hillary Clinton had a good chance to become the President but she could not do it. Not because people cared about her email and other scandals. People accepted that all politicians having scandals, especially if they cared much about her scandals, they would not vote and donate for President Trump. But people who told me they couldn't vote for Clinton and even angry at her to becoming the President, was for one reason -- 'the symbol over her face is high tax'. Therefore, to prevent her having power to impose high tax and to protect their wallets, they had to use all resources of her scandals to attack her. This is the thing Democrat Party has to learn. If the Party can revise the tax policy, Clinton would be easily win big.

As the Clinton had personal issues during election, and especially people were tired with professional politicians so they wanted to give a chance for someone outside politics, these reasons should favor President Trump win with popularity. However, his winning election was critical. A big number of Republican voters swing their votes to Clinton as they could not handle President Trump's aggression and anti messages. This is the thing Republican has to learn.

What comes after taxes are increased?

Raising taxes affect to the increasing costs of living. To increase property tax, for example, affects to apartments' and commercial stores' rental fees increase. Landlords don't want to responsively paying property tax alone because they do business that is making profits is important. Therefore, they add the property tax to tenants to pay by increasing rental fees. And consequently, like landlords, stores' and restaurants' owners as well don't want to responsively paying the higher rental fees so they add the increased rents into their products' prices and services' fees.

It often happens, particularly in big cities, when apartments' rental fees are increased to a certian level which is higher than middle-class income can afford, these middle-class workers are forced to move out to live in suburbs. They have to wake up early morning to drive cars for long hours to come to work in cities.

Next, as workers can't afford the expensive rents in big cities, one way landlords do to keep their businesses survive, if they choose not to sell their properties, is to put their rental apartments on welfare programs because only government can pay any fee. By doing that, landlords can now increase their rental fees up many times higher. The artificial fees increased rapidly like sky rocket does not mean 'economic growth' but it only affects the costs of living in cities as high as the price of gold.

As the rental fees are increased fast like sky rocket, business owners can easily lose their businesses. Although, they can charge more on their customers, but never forget -- businesses have competitions, especially competitions are higher every year. Therefore, their products' prices and services' fees can't be increased as fast as taxes. Moreover, customers, too, who have to spend more of their incomes on rents and perhaps more on individual income tax as well, don't have much left each month to support local businesses.

In addition, the numbers of customers are depended on the numbers of local residents and the residents' average income levels. When the cost of doing business is increased too high caused by taxes increase, businesses can't gain more numbers of customers everytime to cover the higher costs of doing business as the numbers of residents are limited by the areas.

Imagine -- a pricey rental space in a big city convinces a restaurant owner to open a fancy restaurant. Sell eighty-dollar for a small piece of beef steak to customers. Unfortunately, most residents in the area live on welfare program. Unlike online business, most small businesses on streets such as restaurants only depend on local residents as their customers.

One thing government should concern about is to match the residents' average income levels to the property rental fees. In fact, all people regardless to their income levels can live together everywhere they want to live. Therefore, it should not be any problem for low-income people to live in a big city. However, if the average income level of the residents in a big city is low, properties' rental fees should be very cheap as well, so that it will be easier for business owners to market their businesses. Government, too, can afford to pay for low-income people's housing without raising high taxes. Using a strategy that makes sense in solving problem helps government able to run by itself. A strategy that does not make any sense in solving problem only causes government big money unnecessary.

In the past, Massachusettes is used to have apartment rental control. I sympathize all landlords as their businesses would not make enough to cover their bills. Apartment rents should not be controlled but taxes should have ceiling.

Think -- you have lived and worked in a high-tax state for all your life. After retirement, the tax hike forces you to sell your home and move away to live on the retirement in a low-tax state. In this case it sends an alarm to the State government, means that the State's tax rates are too high. It is the responsibility of the State government, Mayors and Governor, politicians in helping their citizens to live through their retirement ages. Now, even more embarrassed, many Americans begin to think of retirement in a poor country as they can't be able to afford to retire even in a low-tax State. If you have worked in Massachusettes for all your life, the Massachusettes government should find some ways to help you able to live comfortably in your retirement in Massachusettes. Otherwise some days Massachusattes would turn into a red State.

It's like a cycle. When taxes increase, rents increase, products' prices and services' fees increase. As people need higher incomes to survive, they have to ask government to raise minimum wage. As companies pay higher wages plus higher taxes, again, they add these bills into their products' prices and services' fees. Government, too, needs more money to pay for welfares as higher demands in housing and food stamps, so one way to keep government runs smoothly, taxes are raised again to cover all the bills. It's like all of these are chasing each others in the endless cycle. Raising Tax is the way to create more problems than solving problems.

Raising taxes cause jobs lose.

By comparison between the costs of doing business in America and in other poor countries, there are wide gaps. If the costs of doing business in America stop increasing, over time the gaps can be narrower because poor countries have to raise taxes to build their countries. To raise taxes will cause the minimum wages in poor countries higher to match America's wages. However, this never happens because America government also keep raising taxes. Even worse, America taxes often jump faster than poor countries. Therefore, the gaps would never be narrower. Factories would never come back to America. Although, facing the Trump's tariffs, the costs of doing business in poor countries are still cheaper than doing business in America.

When the Democrat Party campaigns for 'Top one percent doesn't pay fair share', people have to think that all of the top-one-percent own businesses. As the Democrat Party bills these people more taxes, they add these costs into their products' prices and services' fees. Finally, the top-one-percent still won't pay their fair share. The strategy the Democrat Party chooses to solve the tax issue by increasing taxes does not resolve this issue. All middle-class people and consumers are the people who responsively pay high taxes everytime taxes are increased, does not matter are the higher taxes on whose bills.

Often seen, when workers are on strike, they will ask Democrat politicians for help in the negotiation to their employers. The negotiation like this always succeeds. But think -- after workers get paid higer wages, the Democrat Party will take their income back by increasing their taxes. Or the worst scenario, business owners choose to move their entire businesses out of the country.

On the other hand, the Republican Party should tell the top-one percent of the country to understand low-income people's lives. When wealthy people are bankrupted by doing bad businesses, they still have good food to eat, nice clothes to wear, a nice home to live. But when low-income people are broke, they may not have even ten dollars to buy a pizza. When the top-one percent makes good money, they fly on their private jets to spend money outside countries. Also many of them tranfer money to other countries to avoid paying taxes. Low-income people can only shop in locals to support the top-one percent's businesses.

Who causes tax hike?

Enthusiastic politicians cause tax hike.

Think -- when you are hired to work, to keep your job for long you are enthusiastically to do your job. Same here -- if any politician doesn't create any new project or new benefit to offer people, it seems like the politician doesn't do the job well. The more projects politicians create, the more taxes are raised. Companies always feel lucky to hire enthusiastic workers, but in this political case, it can be a city's bad luck to hire an enthusiastic politician.

Most politicians are not afraid of tax hike because many of them are not the residents of cities they represent. They may live in low-tax states, drive cars for miles everyday to work in high-tax states. Or if they are residents, their huge campaign donations and job offers would compensate their higher tax bills.

In Thailand, I don't see taxes being raised often, especially taxes are very low for long decades. My family owns a big land, I never hear my father complain when he pays for property tax. My family also owns a small business a grocery store, but we never complain when we pay for business tax.

I don't know how the Thai government come up with the money when a new government project is built. I never see Thai people are stressful over tax hike during election. And now Thai government just provides more welfare benefits, health coverage to low-income people, better school lunchbox and public transportation, still I don't see Thai people complain over tax hike. In America, whether to build a big or a small project, taxes are always raised (very high).

However, more or less tax has pro and con. Less tax can also cause job lose. For example, many Thai students are graduated in science. Their dream is to be a scientist but have to find a job in other fields such as a bank teller. Some people are graduated in psychology, archeology but may have to work in business fields. Some kinds of jobs make no business or take long time to do researches until they start making money such as scientists need laboratory and government funds at the beginning. The result is that jobs that make no (or less) business seem to be cut off from society and the knowledge on those fields becomes underdevelopment. It doesn't mean that Thais have less education. They are as smart as Americans but Thai government has no money to fund their ideas and projects to show off the World.

What the Republican Party has campaigned for tax-cut is to help people feel wealthy. The Republicans' tax-cut gives people more money in thier pockets to spend. What the Democrat Party has campaigned for is to help the country become a developed country -- with good welfare and the educational investments. 'America Great' is because America is a developed country and Americans are wealthy. Therefore, both Republican Party and Democrat Party have to work together to find the common ground of what the tax rates make 'America Great'.

To slow down the enthusiastic politicians, at a townhall where the meeting is set to discuss over a new project, the person (or politician) who creates the idea for a new city's project should be the 'first' person to donate money to support his / her project. The donation for all of the government projects in such this case should not be used for tax deduction. And it should not come from the political campaign money donations. This given-away donation must come from the project creater's personal bank account. It would be too easy for politicians to just create an idea but never pay for anything they create. Moreover, this donation must be publicly announced. As many politicians are wealthy, now public will know how much wealthy politicians actually support their projects when their supports can be interpreted into the values of money from their personal bank accounts which can't be used for tax deduction.

In addition, people in the city who vote 'yes' to support the project must follow their leader by, first, donating money to support the project. Also this donations to fund government projects can not be used as tax deduction. To start a new project, the donations should be collected more than 80 percent of the entire project's cost then the rest will go to tax. Look -- a new project doesn't need to be built right away but whenever city has enough money which can be the next five years or ten years or never happen as having not enough support. It isn't fair to the people who don't support the project to pay higher tax. Their anger over tax hike can cause the division in the city.

Here another thing -- before voting to support a new city's project, it is the city's resposibility to knowledge people that the budget to fund each project isn't ended at the project is done. There are maintaining costs to pay each year and that means people who vote 'yes' for the project are required to donate to the city each year to continue supporting their projects. when the donation collected go less means that the project becomes useless and out-dated so it can be removed or abandoned.

Next, the discussions at the townhall for a new city's project which affect to increasing taxes should be separated into groups:

First group is : landlords and commercial building owners. They will discussed over the topic -- 'if the property tax is raised for a certian percentage to fund the city's project, how much would it be effective to the increase of the apartments' and comercial stores' rental fees?'

Second group is : all of the business owners who do business in the city, whether they are residents or non-residents. They will come to discuss after city has received the real number from the landlords on the increase of the rental fees. The discussion will be, for example, 'if the rent is increased by a certian percentage (such as twenty percent), how will it be effective to the products' prices and services' fees to be increased?' For example, pizza restaurant owners may want two dollars more for every piece of pizza. Chinese restaurants may want three dollars more for every order and one dollar more for dilivery service. Barbers may want five dollars more for every haircut. Dry-cleaners may want two dollars more for every dry-clean shirt. Tattoo stores may want ten dollars more for their artistic services.

The last group is : all of the people in the city. The discussion will be -- 'are people comfortable to pay twenty percent more for rent, two dollars more for pizza, three dollars more for chinese take-out on each order, five dollars more for haircut, two dollars more for dry-cleaner, ten dollars more for people who want tattoo, ... ?' And 'what's about people who live on welfare -- in case of the project is over budget, do they accept to receive benefits cut or some low-income families may be randomly to moving out of town?'

If city doesn't do this way, people can't vision how the government spending bill on a new project would affect directly to their livings, and that their demands would never end.

Another suggestion, when City has budget leftover each year such as $ 500,000, city should not ask people at townhall for a suggestion of 'what should City do with this $ 500,000 ?'

Simply, people should tell City -- 'why do we need to spend all every dime? Why not save it for next year more tax-cut?' Or mail a rebate check to everyone in the city who pay tax with a note – 'although, it is a small amont of money, please spend this money to support local businesses. Take your family to eat out at restaurant, buy new clothes for your children, etc.'

Or this leftover budget each year can be saved for a new project in the future. Think -- when you have an idea to buy a car but you don't have money -- what do you do? You don't need to give up your dream of owning a car but you plan and save money each month. Some years your dream comes true. City should not build a new project when it has no money. The leftover budget city save each year can be used to fund future projects with no need to raise taxes every time. In addition, some government projects, which are too out-dated, should be removed to save more money.

Politicians should learn that some good ideas can be very cheap. Some are not necessary to spend any money. And some even can create new revenue for government to cut more taxes for people. People don't want politicians do easy jobs by raising taxes to fund new projects every time. If money is used as a key to solve problems every time, people have to pay more for the rest of their lives.

Next, City should control their welfare budget by not raising taxes each year. Welfare benefits, more or less, should be based on each year economy of each City. When economy is doing well, welfare families deserve to get more benefits. At townhall, Mayor will speak on behalf of low-income families to thank all business owners for great job performance in the same time low-income people will applaud to honor business owners. This way will help low-income families absorb that their livings depend on businesses in their City so they have reasons to help supporting businesses.

Now, President Trump announced that this is a great economy. Welfare families should demand more benefits from the President. This is what is known as control fake news by politicians who often use the 'great economic propaganda' to win elections.

In contrast, in a bad economy should affect everyone including low-income families. In a City when a business is closed, low-income families shoud be sad because it will affect some welfare families have to move out of town as the business.

A Democrat President should have a program such as the top ten of the most generous people in the country who donate money to government without tax deduction will be invited for the States of Union. A Democrat President will thank these most generous people of the country -- 'thank you very much. When it's time we need help, these people never forget us ...' Don't forget that Republican people don't help others based on deplorable looks but they help someone because they love the person. Only low-income people can make the Republicans love them, they will receive help. But the reality is that Democrat politicians like to stir up situation for low-income people to fight against wealthy people. It makes wealthy Republicans feel like they are treated inappropriate from being a hard working people.

A Republican President, on the other hand, should invite low-income people who struggle very hard in their lives until success to the States of Union as role models for other low-income people to follow. This way help Republicans and Democrats learn to reach out the other sides.

Now everyone will move forward the same direction. Although, tax hike doesn't affect low-income people, by receiving benefits cut they will tell their politicians that they don't want new government projects, instead, they want government save money.

How to reset the cost of living

To reset the cost of living is not the same as the Republicans' tax-cut. The Republicans' tax-cut only benefits wealthy people while middle-class people end up pay more taxes. No any Party can solve tax issue because every Party favors only their supporters -- which this case can be compared to the case of 'father isn't fair to all children equally'.

The main purpose is to lower costs of living by using tax decreasing as a tool.

First, start at property tax as apartment rental fee takes a big part of individual income. Each City invites all landlords come for meeting. The discussion at the townhall will be -- 'if City lower property tax by a certain percentage (such as 30 - 40 percentage), how can it affect the rental fee to be decreased?'

At this point, a City doesn't make a decision whether 'yes' or 'no' to lower property tax. A City only wants to get the idea of how landlords are willing to coperate. Keep in mind that most landlords own houses, including all home owners so to coperate with City, they all will get more savings from their houses' property tax-cut. All the top-one-percent own big houses and big properties such as hotels, warehouses, shopping malls, lands so they will get tax saving through the property tax-cut. This way is better than the Republicans' tax-cut because the benefits are shared to everyone.

I remember -- the collapse in America economy at the end of Bush term, big businesses asked government for bailed-out money. President Obama, the Bush's successor, made the decision to give the bail out to big bussinesses to sustaining economy and to relieve the President's worrisome in facing politicals tasks down the road over the massive unemployment.

However, at the time, I heard many middle-class people tell me disappointedly they were at the Obama's bailed-out plan. They thought that rather than bailing out businesses, President Obama should have bailed out people. At this point, knowing that everyone needed money they began to envy the business owners. This is in the case that 'father isn't fair to all children equally' . This is the lesson that all politicians have to learn -- simply 'political ideology originates at home'. When a father has only one gift and he chooses to give to the oldest son, fairly he should tell his oldest son to share it to his younger brother and sister too.

If a City cuts the property tax to landlords with no commitment as the Obama's bail out did, landlords will only keep the money in their pockets. Then Democrat Party has to continue its campaign -- 'top one percent doesn't pay fair share'.

If landlords agree with the City's idea by lower rental fees to all tenents and commercial stores by a certian percentage (such as 15 - 20 percent), the next meeting at the town hall will be for all business owners, both residents and non-residents. The discussion will be -- 'if all the rents are lower by such as 15 - 20 percent, how many percentage of the products' prices and services' fees can be lower for customers?'

The main focus on this part will be at how much supermarkets and groceries can cut down food prices to consumers to save monthly bills on food costs. Every supermarket owns big stores, this savings on property tax / rental fees should be shared to all consumers. Think -- food costs may be able to cut by 10 - 15 percent each month.

Next -- universities? -- They also own big lands. Can they help to lower more on instate tuition? And what's about utility companies? -- They also get benefits from lower rents. What about shopping malls? Can they help lower rents for the retail stores who open stores in the malls?

The process starts from government then government pushes all the costs to lower like the 'domino effect'. This is just one category of tax -- the property tax, each individual may have more dollar savings each month. Next two or three years, government can do it again so people can live with same minimum wage for decades long.

Imagine -- when you start working after graduated, you calculate precisely at your retirement age how much you need in order to have a good retirement. Then fifty years past, at the retirement age you still have to continue working. Money is still not enough. The value of the money at fifty years ago goes less while prices of all things go up rapidly.

Imagine -- twenty years ago you opened a pizza restaurant. Time goes by -- rent increases, utility bills increase, grocery costs increase, and absolutely tax increases. The question is -- 'Do you sell more pizzas today than the past twenty years ago?' Or just the same numbers of customers? And perhaps the numbers of customers even goes less as more pizza restaurants open in the area.

Imagine -- the salary you make today -- how comfortable you are if your monthly spending bills go back in time twenty years ago. This is the reason that once in a while government should reset tax rates to lower cost of living. Otherwise, some days people may have to carry a basket of cash to buy grocery. Or irony, government may have to print new one-thousand-dollar bill with Donald Trump's face on the bill.

My suggestion -- to reset the cost of living, isn't created to help people become a millionaire, or have enough savings to buy a house or a car or a kitchen renovation. But, it can help you pay off your debt faster, help to increase your shopping power, help America businesses more competitive and help to compensate paying for higher products' prices by Trump's tariffs. If you work as a bank teller, you should be able to afford a studio apartment by yourself. Moreover, as government collects less tax, the welfare costs : housing and food stamps, can be reduced by proportion.

It doesn't matter how much you make -- it's just the numbers. But how much you have left each month to save is what matter. Imagine -- if your salary is one million dollar a month but your spending is two millions a month, you are broke. In contrast, if you make only $ 3,000 a month but your spending is only $ 2,500 , you have $ 500 saving each month -- some years you can save enough to own a house or a car.

To increase minimum wage isn't an effective way to solve economy. But to reset the cost of living by lower tax is an effective way to solve economy. Today, people feel they have a good economy because of minimum wage increases. But never forget that cost of living has already moved ahead. But in the short time future, people will end up poor again because all businesses and landlords also start adjusting their new prices and fees.

I support 'equal pay - equal wage' for all genders.

My experience is -- a long time ago I worked at a company where my ex-boss told me -- the reason the company didn't want to pay women same wage as men. It was perhaps, I also got paid less. He said -- the company had experiences in the past hiring new graduated women for work. When they first applied for jobs, they did not have boyfriends. After working for short time, they began to hook up for a boyfriend then married, then quickly had kids, especially every year. To find a temporary worker to fill the positions for a few months is difficult as everyone wanted a full-time job. My ex-boss said that it wasn't because he thought that women had less ability than men, but he thought that women already received high benefits such as maternity leave.

However, to end this gender gap, I still support 'equal pay - equal wage' for all genders. But what businesses will get is that government should promise to all businesses that minimum wage will never be raised for long period of time. But government will find a way to help workers be able to live with same wage for long decades. To reset the cost of living by using tax cut as a tool as in my suggestion is one in many ways government can do to solve the problem.

To help government cut more taxes, the Democrat Party should tell their low-income supporters that to help one person to survive does not cost too much but to create situations such as having too many children to get welfare benefits increases unnecessary welfare costs unaffordable. Or the reason to get married is to get more benefits than being single -- this is to create situation unnecessary. Having too many children causes a family to be poor and causes government to raise more taxes.

Also, the Republican Party should tell their religious supporters that the idea of having too many children is not practicality for this generation. Contraception and vasectomy should be covered by insurance.

In the past, money was easy earned, now money is hard to earn. Paying too much taxes causes people stress and it causes fighting in the country. People want politicians help them solve tax hike so they don't need to fight each other. But what politicians do is to inflame situation by using aggression in their political campaigns and in their workplace at the White House to convince people fight against each other. The reason they do that -- not to help people save their tax money, money donations keep pouring to politicians. They make millions of donations but still keep saying that 'money isn't enough' – this is like they are telling people that 'taxes are also never enough'. Irony, haven't they ever learned to spend less, senator Marie Antoinette?

Now, it's time for people to tell all politicians -- 'we have had enough'. We have had enough in political games you guys create. We have had enough fights. And we have paid enough taxes and their campaign donations. We have listened to all the bogus campaign promises long enough but the problems are never solved permanently. Because we hear enough, now, it's time we should stop listening to those politicians and their political inflammatory statements. It's time you have to ask yourself -- 'what political strategy makes sense to the country?' Then vote for a 'father' who always puts himself in the middle, fair to all of his children equally.