As you can see from the charts below, the way they "got" you was that, mostly by copious use of paid lobbyists and huge campaign bribes, corporations shifted the cost of the U.S. Government onto your shoulders. In 1956, individuals paid about 59% of Uncle Sam's bills and corporations paid about 41%.

By 2005, mostly as a result of those lobbyists and campaign bribes, we individuals provided 86% and corporations only about 14% of Uncle's current income. The corporations managed to reduce "their" share from ~41% in 1956 to ~14% in 2005. And, as a result, the amount we are forced to pay jumped from 59% to 86%. There are plans in the works to further reduce the corporate share. Which will raise "our" share even further. [1]

The pie chart directly below, which includes taxes in the CPI (Consumer Price Index), shows just how successful they've been at "getting you" here in America. Especially by taxing you more and more. (Taxes are the big slice at the bottom.)

CPI (Consumer Price Index) Including Taxes www.nowandfutures.com

Next let's see where Uncle get's his tax "income." HINT: It's NOT from "The people who make the most money" - - -

Chart 2-3. The Federal Government Dollar-- Where It Comes From U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 2001

Social Security is capped. That means people only pay on the part of their income at or below the "cap." So people don't pay F.I.C.A. on anything they make above the cap amount. That means poorer folks pay a larger percentage of their over-all income in Social Security taxes than the "rich" do.

A tax that forces poorer folks to pay a larger percent of their income than richer folks is rare. Such taxes are called "regressive," and rightly hated by almost everyone. F.I.C.A. escapes this fate largely because it's sold as a retirement fund. But it's a tax none the less, which is why it's included as part of the U.S. Government OMB's tax chart.

Now let's see how Uncle Sam's tax income has been evolving - - -

Chart 2-6. Composition of Revenues Office of Management and Budget, 2003

Now notice what happened by 2006 (right of chart). Over the 50 years between 1956 and 2006, while "Individual Income Taxes" remained relatively steady, "Excise Taxes" decreased from about 12% of Uncle's tax income to about 3% -- and "Corporation Income Taxes" decreased from about 25% to about 10%.

Most of the difference was made up by adding 21% to Social Security revenue -- increasing that from financing 12% of Uncle's operation to financing that 33% we saw in the second pie chart above.

So, while Uncle's corporation tax income decreased by 60%, he nearly tripled his F.I.C.A. (Social Security) income.

Corporations, over time, with their 15,000 or so registered and paid Federal lobbyists -- and by making huge campaign contributions -- managed to shift the tax burden from "themselves" to the poorer folks via that regressive Social Security tax.

Founding Father Benjamin Franklin knew they were out to get you - - -

"... there has been in every State and Kingdom a constant kind of warfare between the governing and governed: the one striving to obtain more for its support, and the other to pay less. And this has alone occasioned great convulsions, actual civil wars, ending either in dethroning of the Princes, or enslaving of the people. Generally indeed the ruling power carries its point, the revenues of princes constantly increasing... but always in want of more. The more the people are discontented with the oppression of taxes; the greater need the prince has of money to distribute among his partisans and pay the troops that are to suppress all resistance.... There is scarce a king in a hundred who would not, if he could, follow the example of Pharaoh, get first all the peoples money, then all their lands, and then make them and their children servants for ever ..." --Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) US Founding Father Source: before the Constitutional Convention, June 2, 1787.

So did Albert Keuls - - -

"It's internationally agreed that all types of plunder, mayhem or murder are acceptable for a government, as long as it limits its predations to its own citizens.

"Let me see if I can explain this bizarre game in plain talk.

"People cordon off a piece of land and arbitrarily announce that it is henceforth a 'sovereign nation.' Ruffians and schemers soon grab the posts of government, and by the power they vest in themselves set about plundering the individuals who live there. This has been going on for thousands of years, until today the entire earth (other than a portion of the oceans) is divided among different gangs, who wear pinstripe suit[s], and run their plunder under the flag of governments." --Albert Keuls, The Offshore Game, From John Pugsley's Journal, Private Conversations with the Money Masters 109_clip13

Joel Barlow explained how it's done - - - -

"The art of constructing governments has usually been to ... vary the means of seizing upon private property, [so] as to bring the greatest possible quantity into the public coffers, without exciting insurrections.[2] Those governments which are called despotic, deal more in open plunder; those that call themselves free, and act under the cloak of what they teach the people to reverence as a constitution, are driven to the arts of stealing. These have succeeded better by theft than the others have by plunder; ...Under those constitutional governments the people are more industrious, and create property faster; because they are not sensible in what manner, and in what quantities, it is taken from them. The administrators, in this case, act by a compound operation; one is to induce the people to work, and the other to take from them their earnings." --Joel Barlow, [3] "Advice to the Privileged Orders in the Several States of Europe - Resulting from the Necessity and Propriety of a General Revolution in the Principle of Government," written between 1792 and 1795 109_clip18

U.S. establishment insider Carroll Quigley explains one way those who "have succeeded better by theft" keep "we the people" from escaping their scam - - -

"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can 'throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy." --Carroll Quigley, U.S. President Bill Clinton's mentor, "Tragedy and Hope," pg. 1247, 1966AD

So now you know why the Libertarians are right when they point out that "There's not a dime's worth of difference between the two major parties."

Ex soccer star Imran Kahn bears witness to the results - - -

...I discovered that in our country [Pakistan] there's a tiny elite who has usurped the resources of the whole country. The whole country panders to this tiny elite. By the way, I belong to them. And the rich are getting richer. And the vast majority of people don't even have basic rights.... what is happening is, the elite has basically captured the government. Whether it's one party or the other, basically the interests are the same. And so, they come into government, and they plunder the country. They usurp the resources. And so, common people are deprived of all the basic needs. --Pakistani Opposition Leader Imran Khan on Musharraf, Bhutto, and How the U.S. Has Undermined Pakistani Democracy, January 30, 2008

Arundhati Roy sums it up - - -

"In India, the word public is now a Hindi word. It means people. In Hindi, we have sarkar and public, the government and the people. Inherent in this use is the underlying assumption that the government is quite separate from 'the people.' ...those who still have fire in their bellies, see it as chor, the thief, the snatcher-away of all things." --Arundhati Roy, Public Power in the Age of Empire