 |
22 May 2013
We Are the Idiots
Dr. Henry Miller, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, and Gregory Conko, senior fellow at the … Read More.
|
 |
15 May 2013
Hating America
Brothers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who are accused of setting the bombs that exploded at the Boston Marathon,… Read More.
|
 |
8 May 2013
Honest Examination of Race
One definition given for insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different … Read More.
|
|
Duped by Congressional Lies
Some of the responses to my column last week, titled "Immoral Beyond Redemption," prove that Americans have been hoodwinked by Congress. Some readers protested my counting Social Security among government handout programs that can be described as Congress' taking what belongs to one American and giving to another, to whom it doesn't belong — legalized theft. They argued that they worked for 45 years and paid into Social Security and that the money they now receive is theirs. These people have been duped and shouldn't be held totally accountable for such a belief. Let's look at it.
The Social Security pamphlet of 1936 read, "Beginning November 24, 1936, the United States Government will set up a Social Security account for you. ... The checks will come to you as a right." (http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssb36.html). Americans were led to believe that Social Security was like a retirement account and that money placed in it was, in fact, their property. Shortly after the Social Security Act's passage, it was challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court, in Helvering v. Davis (1937). The court held that Social Security was not an insurance program, saying, "The proceeds of both employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way." In a 1960 case, Flemming v. Nestor, the Supreme Court said, "To engraft upon Social Security system a concept of 'accrued property rights' would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever-changing conditions which it demands."
Decades after Americans were duped into thinking that the money taken from them was theirs, the Social Security Administration belatedly and quietly tried to clean up its history of deception. Its website (http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html) explains, "Entitlement to Social Security benefits is not (a) contractual right." It adds: "There has been a temptation throughout the program's history for some people to suppose that their FICA payroll taxes entitle them to a benefit in a legal, contractual sense. ... Congress clearly had no such limitation in mind when crafting the law." The Social Security Administration's explanation fails to mention that it was the SSA itself that created the lie that "the checks will come to you as a right."
Here's my question to those who protest that their Social Security checks are not handouts: Seeing as Congress has not "set up a Social Security account for you" containing your 45 years' worth of Social Security contributions, where does the money you receive come from? I promise you it is not Santa Claus or the tooth fairy. The only way Congress can give one American a dollar is to first take it from some other American. Congress takes the earnings of a person who's currently in the workforce to give to a Social Security recipient. The sad fact of business is that Social Security recipients want their monthly check and couldn't care less about who has to pay. That's a vision shared by thieves who want something; the heck with who has to pay for it.
Then there's the fairness issue that we're so enamored with today. It turns out that half the federal budget is spent on programs primarily serving senior citizens, such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. But let's look at a few comparisons between younger Americans and older Americans. More than 80 percent of those older than 65 are homeowners, and 66 percent of them have no mortgage. Homeownership is at 40 percent for those younger than 35, and only 12 percent own their home free and clear of a mortgage. The average net worth of people older than 65 is about $230,000, whereas that of those younger than 35 is $10,000. There's nothing complicated about this; older people have been around longer. But what standard of fairness justifies taxing the earnings of workers who are less wealthy in order to pass them on to retirees who are far wealthier? There's no justification, but there's an explanation. Those older than 65 vote in greater numbers and have the ear of congressmen.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM


|
 |
Comments
|
24 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
We have been duped. It does not add up that the government takes extra money out of our paychecks like its their right, yet its optional that we get anything back. And what if someone dies before retirement? I assume their surviving family gets nothing for all that person has put into the system. Since its clear that Walter reads the feedback from his articles, how about a follow-up on what to do about this mess? Can we make social security optional? Is it realistic to just halt the program? Can we reduce benifets and do other things to make social security sustainable? The shill Froma Harrop said in a recent article that social security only needs minor tweeking to be put back on track. I doubt the validity of her thinking, but heck, I don't know, maybe.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Mon Jun 11, 2012 9:13 AM
|
|
|
|
Sir; how genius of you to recognize that behind all of these social questions are moral questions, ie: Fairness, meaning, Justice... We all know, that promises for social security were bound to show up as lies, when you vote for somthing and then neglect to fund it, or you find it part way, and then use the money to make the deficit seem smaller... And you are absolutely right to ask why old folks are not working for their daily bread, and why they are living off the young when they have so much more in old age...Doing what you do which is a lot of nothing, that might be possible, so I hope you do it...
Most old folks cannot get a job doing much of anything demanding, need regular bathroom breaks and would break down and soon need medical attention... If forced to live without income their vast fortunes would soon evaporate, and you must know of the many who cannot make ends meet who must dispose of their life's accumulation of capital with a revers mortgage...Many of the old are already malnourished...
I think it is right, however, for the old to be dispossessed... Why should they be protected from predation when no other helpless person is??? You see; that when it was still possible to change society, when socialism was possible, when communism was a real threat that those old people bought a promise for the future that took money out of their pocket today, that also took money that might have helped to raise a child that may have helped support them... Unborn babies offer no succor...
Look at it... Social security helped support my parent's parents, but that was money out of my life, and my contributions helped support my parents and that was out of my children's income, and now that our children have nothing because the economy is so scarewed up, and because this whole nation has stood by and waved good bye to industry as it has departed for higher profits, and supported the busting of unions, and the lowering of wages on the principal that it was good for the economy- now have time to reconsider...
What was done has been done constitutionally...The society we once had is gone... Jefferson fought for it, but not well; and come to find out, Justice Marshall was smart to feed privilages to corporations because our industrial might has saved us... But now that the commonwealth has all been taken by the corporations, and all our resources have been given away for peanuts; who will support us now that we no longer have the means to support ourselves???
The power to tax which no government can long survive without should be the means of making the commonwealth support the populations... We are entitled... What is behind the entitlement is the title we hold to the whole country, that even in private hands must still support the population... Deny that obligation to the old... What are they going to do... Now that they are at the end of their lives... Now that they put aside demanding fair wages because they counted on the government for fairness, what are they going to do???... They are too old to work, so they are too old to revolt...Besides, the very thought that they played into the hands of the rich and powerful when they accepted a promise in liu of a right will paralyze them...
They will remember the days when they could still put up a fight, and could have fought for justice for all working people, and they will hang their heads in shame... You are so right to play upon upon the hostility of the young for the old... No one blames the rich who made off with this country, but plenty of blame will go to those who just let them take it thinking all would be served out of the bounty of the wealthy...
If the young do not know how they have been sold out by the old they are no smarter than those unborn who will find on birth that they have been sold out by the young... We all agree to this stupid economy that is all shell game and no prize... We all bought into the principal that guided those who wrote our constitution that made government powerless to govern business... We are facing now the result of over two hundred years of economic anarchy brought to its ultimate conclusion...
Surprise, surprise; but what is good for business is tragic for America... Now we have to watch our old die in the streets, hopeless and without recourse because we all bet on capitalism only to find it was fraud... If our government does not find the power to tax the rich, and if it does not find the means to deliver what the people are entitled to as part of the commonwealth, then it is done, and while it lives will coerce the poor and deny every obligation...
Our government was done before it ever became legally recognized... The constitution was trash with a time limit written into it... Only the vastness of this country and our wealth has kept it from folding up before now... Now it defaults... It was always morally in default, and always wanting in reason... It is finished...
Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #2
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Mon Jun 11, 2012 3:31 PM
|
|
|
|
Sweeny in the time it took you to write that comment I fed my baby, ran a 5k, boned my wife, cleaned the dishes, and played through chapter 3 of Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots. Its doubtful anyone will take the time to read and understand what you wrote. I glossed over it for about 7 seconds before losing interest.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Mon Jun 11, 2012 6:21 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: Chris McCoy.... At least you kept your bone to home... How does your wife like you talkin filth about her in public??? It is so pointless trying to talk to any of you radical right about morality... You can follow rules... No thought required... Of morality you have no idea... And that explains everything....
Thanks... Sweeney
Btw... I ran 4.5 miles today, and did Mui tai... Not bad for pushing sixty, in my estimation...
Comment: #4
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Mon Jun 11, 2012 8:19 PM
|
|
|
|
Williams, one of my heroes, is telling the truth as far as he goes, but he neglects the change that finally did SS in. In early 1968, President Lyndon Johnson made a change in the budget presentation by including Social Security and all other trust funds in a "unified" budget so he could spend the money on "Great Society" social programs, like Medicare.
Thus began the Democrats raid on the national Treasury that has put us and our kids in hock for centuries. The GOP was the "go along to get along" party that didn't have enough courage to tell the voters the truth, but the Dems put us in hock and Obama is just continuing that tradition with his mania about "stimulus" spending.
Comment: #5
Posted by: techwreck
Tue Jun 12, 2012 5:00 AM
|
|
|
|
Sweeny sex is a natural and beautiful thing. We aren't ashamed of it. And I can name 2 or 3 radical right people on this site. I am not one of them. I'm a libertarian, and its not radical to say that social security is a scam and should be dealt with.
Comment: #6
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Tue Jun 12, 2012 6:37 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: techwreck;... Your hero has no sense of morality, and no idea what it is... A lot of people tend to see things in black and white, and they think of morality as a set of rules from which they dare not stray if they would be moral... And he has brought it up, and so, it is fair to consider what morality is...
You suggest it is bad to put our kids in hock for centuries to come... I am certain that is an exageration, but is it moral to run up debts you will leave to children who did not, and will not see the benefit of what was bought??? So much of what the national debt buys is war, and a little of it goes to buy social peace, and some of it serves no better purpose than the election of the party or person who sponsored it... Is that moral??? Is it moral to rob people of the future- which robs them of their future??? It may certainly be safer than stealing from people alive to defend themselves, but it is no more moral...
To understand morals one must go to the word, and used in its proper context it is as morale when it is opposed to physic... To talk about the morale of a corp is to refer to their spiritual condition while talking about their physical condition, the word Physic is used... Physical forms -are ideas of judgement and knowledge of the physical world... Moral forms refers to all those spiritual notions that humanity has always carried with it: Like justice, liberty, happiness, peace or equity... All moral forms have to do with a person's relationship to his community... Out of moral forms are social forms built...It is a spiritual thing which Mr. Williams tries to understand mathamatically, which is something best reserved for the understanding of physical reality...
If Mr. Williams understanding were greater, he would realize that the life of his community from which he got his life, and his culture which is all his knowledge is the source of all his well being, that if all his friends and family were suddenly replaced with strangers and enemies his life and liberty and peace would be meaningless to them, and so out of reach for him...Does this cause him to be generous to his friends, his family, and his nation??? No... He says mine, mine, mine; and, who ever takes what is mine is morally wrong...
Anthropology could teach him that our notions of property are always in flux... We have corporations, bodies, just as the Romans had corporations; but what were burial societies for them are burying our whole society based upon privilages not specifically granted in the Constitution, but through interpretation of it...
Michael de Monaigne showed that one man's gain is the loss of another, and this has not been disproved and cannot be since societies are closed systems... What ever is the good of one comes out of the commonwealth, and there is enough for all; but once people have carved out the best of the commonwealth and wrote mine on it, they lose track of the obligation of the commonwealth to support all people...And the trend begun at the beginning of this country, to run up the national debt as an excuse for selling the commonwealth for pennies to a class that will then avoid giving their support to the people of the commonwealth is wrong, and is now reaching the point where we have nothing left of the commonwealth to sell to sustain the government other than our inalienable rights to it...
Without rights and our title to this country we are doomed, and this is immoral by every standard except the abstract one used by Mr. Williams that puts wealth above life...He says: My property cannot be taken from me except immorally... His property that he bought with mere money is the commonwealth that belonged to the whole people that no one had the right to sell to him to the begin with, except with the obligation of support for the society because it had been bought with the blood of true heroes...
The piddling little selfish conception of private property that is really recent in the history of human kind has served a few at the expense of the commonwealth, and now those people who think they own it want to deny the life of the nation to those who do not own property... Property is a moral form, an element of ones relationship with their community... We already have too many who do not respect property rights, but pushing property rights to the extreme which is the death of society also destroys the moral support essential to ownership as a form of relationship...
Mr. William's right to own is no better than our assent to his ownership, and if it does not benefit us, why should we support it??? He is relying on our morality to defend his property when private property is making morals meaningless... Really; Is he going to balance the need of a person for their life against his right to property??? He has no idea of morals...
Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #7
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Tue Jun 12, 2012 7:21 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: Chris McCoy... So is the commonwealth a scam, and so is private property a scam, and so is liberty and justice for all a scam... To think anyone of us has to accept a scam that does not in some way benefit us is daffy... Now; all republics are commonwealths, and they are defended and owned communally... From the start our principals in regard to private property considered that a social good would come out of private property, so that the land taken from king and native by the people should be privatized... Such ownership, if it were not contrived and if it had the least resemblance to legality was no more than as a fife...
It is too easy to get public property... All you have to do is use your political influence to get the government to run up the national debt for an excuse to privatize more public wealth... Even in private hands the property must still do good, by which I mean, it must support all its true owners who defend it, which it does through taxation, or it become again part of the commonwealth... We give a lot to property in the way of national defense, but though police, law courts, and prisons as well... If property has rights which people need and die without, then they must come from people with the support of people for some good recognized by the people...
Now we find that this property in private hand which was scamed out of the people now wants to scam them out of their rights that they are entitled too just as they were entitled to the land they took by blood and force...
Either the scam must end, and we must all go back to zero, or people with property will lose some of their privilages, or people must give up on the rights they are entitled to... Since property exists by agreement, that: your possession of it is something I will support, -why should I support your private property if it means I lose my support from it, and my rights to affect my government for my benefit...
Money owns government, and for money and in support of property the debt has once again been raised to the limit... Instead of charging those who actually have seen some benefit from the debt, and we can figure that out; people will instead be denied support when that support was never much, usually enough only to keep them from death's door... And if they lose all while the rich still have what was taken unjustly from them, when it could be just as well taxed, -why should they support it, or the government that allows it???...
It is a mistake to think laws or the governments that make them stand all by themselves... They all stand by agreement, by the moral support of the people; and property is one of those things that could lose all moral support in an instant if it does not serve our interests... We took this land...What respect for the notion of property did we have then??? We could as easily take it back, and any one who thinks there is something sacred and inviolable in property are full of wind... If people with property cannot find some way to make this society work for all, or at least, most; they are cutting the foundations off from under their private property... No one can defend what they own alone...
Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #8
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Tue Jun 12, 2012 7:50 AM
|
|
|
|
I don't know if you brought this up in your previous column, but the SSA continues to lead people to believe that there are separately funded accounts in their names, as they send each person an annual, itemized "statement" of lifetime contributions. Yes, a little thought and investigation will make clear that these are merely reports of government income FROM a particular taxpayer, declaring no right of the taxpayer to that money or any portion of it. But unless you make that effort, the form and content of the yearly "statement" certainly won't disabuse you of the notion that "your money" is being held "in trust" for you. These reports are nothing more than cynical PR to keep people from panicking about the money of theirs that has been taken from them and flushed down the train. And then the SSA and Federal Government have the nerve to play coy.
Comment: #9
Posted by: James Anderson Merritt
Tue Jun 12, 2012 11:17 AM
|
|
|
|
McCoy, Say whatup to Big Mama for me. Thanks.
Comment: #10
Posted by: Leonard Rockstein
Tue Jun 12, 2012 11:38 AM
|
|
|
|
Ok Leonard. What are your thoughts on social security?
Comment: #11
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Tue Jun 12, 2012 2:53 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: James Anderson Merritt...Sir.. It is our money, and our government, and our commonswealth... If the government made promises for any reason, it had better follow through because a government without faith is only an idea...
They want to tell you they cannot afford to support our young, our old, our weak, and our maimed, and they are telling you they cannot do what every society, and even the most primitive societies, have been able to do... If they have no power it is only over their desires and their unfounded principals that they have no power...They say to pay will rob the children of the future, but when is robbing the children of today better than robbing those unborn??? When is robbing the old of today of justice better than robbing children of the future???
The very rich who will tell you with one breath how much wealth has been created by capitalism will tell you in the next breath how little they have for the support of society... The will lavish millions on perverting democracy and say they have no cash for taxes... You fools who pick up their lies and recycle them as fact should read a book or two... How many times has our ability to produce per man hour doubled in the last 100, or 50 Years...
They say one man working cannot support two not working... He can support far more than two... We could all stand to work less for more and have enough to save or spend on ourselves... What we got, for which we were denied fair wages was a promise of the support of our government in our old age, and disability...We could have had more children, and we did not, which only subtracted from what we needed to live, and from our natural support...
What do we get from the government but wind??? Even primitive peoples had in one life time to produce for their youth and for their old age while they could work... The support you recieved when young you gave to other young in your prime, and the care you recieved from the old when young your returned to the old in your prime, and beyond it, you were supported in turn... How is it that they could do that, and we cannot???...The simple explanation is that they were all true nations, all related, all family, and all moral..
We cannot support our nation because to make one less millionaire for the sake of social obligation would rob the economy of the faith upon which it survives... We are so wealthy, and yet ever greater poverty is pushed on the people...Does the government have any honor??? No???Why then do we support it??? Because if the only way capitalism can survive is with the help of a government that will rob youth of its beauty and promise, and leave old age in despair then it is no government but only the means the rich employ for our coercion...
Don't be a mouthpiece for the rich like Mr. Williams... The man is no economist, and he knows nothing of morality... Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #12
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Tue Jun 12, 2012 3:45 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: Chris McCoy... It sounds like he is more interested in your wife's money maker than social security... At least he ain't telling you whatup...And whatup may be best kept between you.... What do you think??? Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #13
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Tue Jun 12, 2012 3:51 PM
|
|
|
|
Yes, I am aware of what Leonard was implying, but the great thing about commenting online is that no one will ever know who I really am, what I do, look like etc. Everything is left up to the imagination. Heck I might not even be married for all anyone knows. I could be 80 years old, or 15. Who really cares what people know or think, I'm just here to propogate the formula.
Comment: #14
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Tue Jun 12, 2012 7:02 PM
|
|
|
|
For Mr. Williams, Walter E.
I signed up for social security yesterday. They asked if I have other retirement programs, and I said yes. My military and teaching retirement. Why did they ask? Should they effect what I will be receiving from social security?
Should I notify the Army I will start receiving social secuirty in Sept?
Thank you
David Warmbrod
Comment: #15
Posted by: David Warmbrod
Wed Jun 13, 2012 6:04 AM
|
|
|
|
If you really want to inflame a leftist, remind them how taking that which belongs to another is "thievery." As such theft is the foundation for their entire belief system, facing the inherent immorality of their tenets makes their heads go "boom."
Comment: #16
Posted by: ragnar danneskjold
Wed Jun 13, 2012 6:39 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: James A, Sweeney
Sweeney, you have too much time on your hands.
Comment: #17
Posted by: Derel Schrock
Wed Jun 13, 2012 7:46 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: ragnar danneskjold... If the rich did not take from the poor they would have no wealth for the poor to take back; but that group that owns the language owns the minds of the masses so they can say the one is profit and the other is theft...
Just to see what you know, tell me what government ever existed with out the power to tax, and what government long survived taxing their poor into poverty while the rich enjoyed immunity??? When enough of the commonwealth was left to this people, when we produced enough for ourselves and export, before our capital was all exported, before we became debtors where before we were wage earners in order to keep us as consumers of what we no longer produced or had the money for, there was a chance we could leave the rich their riches... But they refuse government, and demand anarchy for which the people must suffer chaos...
Not a one of us believes things are going as they should... You do not understand the cause as I do, or understand the solution as I do... And I am not alone... Read your Declaration of Independence... That crew who sailed this ship of ours past the rocks and into the future knew what they were doing...They were changing forms, something people find extremely painful and full of anxiety to do; but changes of form, in our case, a change of the form of our government and economy are essential to human progress... As Jefferson said: We must right ourselves by changing the forms to which we are accustomed...
It is from an historical perspective what is done all the time, and those who cannot change their forms are doomed... All of history is the story of changing forms, and our history has not much changed since the revolution, and not even the ending of slavery in our civil war changed things much...Only the need for greater change has grown... Only the need for more rights and less privilage has grown...
You can call it theft... Better to take property than lose rights because the loss of rights means slavery...And what did our forefathers do, but steal the country from king and native except for the small portions bought from those holding the dubious title to them of usurper...I too would steal the whole country and cart it off; but it would make better sense for us all to take our share, and save what we can for future generations... Thanks ....Sweeney
Comment: #18
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Wed Jun 13, 2012 8:39 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: Chris McCoy... Sir... Try to understand the words you are using, like formula... We use that word: Form, in a lot of different ways and it goes right back to the Greeks... Inform, uniform, reform, deform, and etc...It equates to idea, but when you understand that ideas that we hold as though true are what we make our social forms like government out of you can begin to become formally conscious... Because people relate though their forms...
Marriage is a social form, built on the idea of love... As long as the idea means something to both, the marriage may be a good form... When one wants to use the other, he or she is taking the meaning, the love out of the relationship until it is all form and formality, and no relationship... We all have to invest something in our relationships, our forms of relationship; but we all have to get enough back out of them to sustain us... People have been milking meaning out of the forms of our government and economy for a long time, and all the while many of us have been looking at government as a mere shell where our national affection once resided... It is all form, and no relationship...
Too much has been taken out of it and converted to money which is just another form, and that form can be so much abused that no one will put any faith in it either...Think about it... If the rich have all our money now, and can tap the government for more as soon as they run short, there is no practical limit to what they might buy from us individually or from the government... But for money to have meaning, we have to share it, and all have some... It does not serve as a form of relationship if they have it all...Nor if they own the whole country does it serve as a form of relationship...
Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #19
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Wed Jun 13, 2012 8:54 AM
|
|
|
|
Sweeney, I think you missed the point of the post. Williams is only saying that you shouldn't expect or assume the SS money to be there when you are not "entitled" to it. Additionally he posted quotes from the government stating Social Security money is not "entitled in any way," "is not accrued property rights," and what is probably most damning is the quote and link from the Social Security Administration itself stating there should be no sense of entitlement for the money that you put in!! I don't see you addressing that main point. You are off on tangents of the Greeks, marriage, and Jefferson... none of which has anything to do with Mr. Williams post.
However to your original post, please post me some historical references where prior to the 1935 Social Security Act old people were "dying in the streets." Wikipedia might be wrong in stating that hospitals were around as far back as the Roman Empire, but even there they make no mention of hospitals historically "kicking old people into the street to die" but then being saved in 1935 by the SS Act.... or was that just a lie you told to make a point?! Regardless I have never heard that before and would like the opportunity to verify your sources so I can give you the benefit of the doubt
Comment: #20
Posted by: MarkV
Wed Jun 13, 2012 10:04 AM
|
|
|
|
MarkV you have more patience than the rest of us to actually read Sweeny's posts and argue them. Good on you, and good comment.
Comment: #21
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Wed Jun 13, 2012 7:03 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: MarkV;... We are entitled to every good thing for which the constitution was written; and I do not care that Social Security was a hollow, good for nothing, cynical promise because the only reason to convince people now that it was just that, is to cut the guts out of it after it has served its purpose which was to deny communism in this land while it was defeated in the rest of the world...
If we were a democracy, we would not make promises or break promises... We would do what was right for the people at all times, and be done with doing it... All of capitalism has been one long empty promise... It has left us poverty, hopelessness, helplessness, war, the threat of anhillation, wide spread and popular ignorance of basic reality, a plundered envirment and governments too broke to pay their debts, or fight the wars they think would solidify their power in the face of great unrest...
We have not left the middle ages but only magnified it and recycled it... Are we more rich or secure??? How much more secure and rich might we have been with democracy??? Those people have taken our legs and left us the bone... Let them take our entitlements... Let them privatize the entire commonwealth for all I care... Either we will find how to take all our property back, or we will submit to slavery, and since to their minds there are too many of us -we may also have to endure slaughter...
The rich are not with us, and have never been with us...The government is their government, and for that reason they allow money to talk directly to it while limiting our ability to affect change...They can only push the people so far, and there is still a lot of fight in people... It is all directed at the people by the people... Divide et empera has worked well for the rich... They can afford division... Unity is very expensive, and the sad fact is that no country can long survive without it...
Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #22
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Fri Jun 15, 2012 6:32 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: MarkV... Actually; back in the old days when governments had enough money, they gave some measure of protection to old people in Asylums for the insane which were also wearhouses for the demented, as well as the diseased... And they had county farms back then which actually may have done a lot of poor and indigent people a lot of good, and actually prolonged their lives... My father told me of the sight of so many old out in the fields hoeing was remarkable...
A black man told me a story I found interesting, of being enlisted to bury an old woman who made a nuisance of herself at the farm, refusing to work, pleading that she had been swindled by the local banker... The old man was a youth then, and he dropped his end of the coffin because he heard knocking, and it quit after that since he had dropped the head end... The potter's field was across the street from the farm, and his home was beside that... They probably got sick of the old lady complaining, and gave her a long drink of laudinum before boxing...
And there were prisons which are still a sort of welfare for those who are crippled morally and physically...I cannot say other than anacdotally, but a man I once knew who spent time in Jackson for bootlegging said there were all kinds of deformed people in prison, people with one arm or leg shorter than another, or missing altogether...
Disabilities are more accepted now than in the past, in part because of social Security... Even with Social Security there are a lot of old people below the poverty line... A lot of demented people are taken for all they own by televangelists or preachers, and put out on the street... Reverse mortgages are a good way of robbing families of capital built up over generations...
Clearly, a lot of old people are among the homeless for one reason or another, but then, the riggors of homelessness due to mental illness will make people old... We had one around here for a while, schizophenic, almost blind, looking for enough bottles and cans to buy cigarettes, and bread to feed the sparrows... I talked to him when I saw him, and marvelled at his ability to stay out all the time in any kind of weather... HIs hide was like leather, and his hair and beard were wild and matted, and there did not seem to be a spare ounce of fat on him anywhere... And of all things, he seems to have died of a heart attack...And even with social security, which I am almost certain he got some help from, he did die in the street which was his home, his bed, his his world....
Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #23
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Fri Jun 15, 2012 7:21 AM
|
|
|
|
‘The Private Sector is doing fine!' Of course, I'm quoting! Washington has lot touch with reality! Doesn't
take a rocket scientist to figure out it's time to eliminate Senators and Congress people, padlock the
doors, send them all home, and put in place a Governor from each state, who isn't an attorney, to make
sure we get back to being ‘For the People'. The Governor should know what's going on and put an end to
the rhetoric; if not, then ‘YOU'RE FIRED' are going to be the words Taxpayers use, which should have
been made into law many years ago! But then, look who's passing the laws and who they are benefiting.
Not the Taxpayers!
Politicians continue to talk about ‘creating jobs', yet they haven't the slighest idea of how creating jobs
works. If they did, NAFTA, CAFTA, and FOREIGN trade would have been voted down! The only jobs
they've created are for themselves, their buddies, and their very deep pockets, thus making government
so big, it's bankrupted America! When they sold Americans' jobs out to foreign countries, stating
“America will become a service country”, well, you guessed it, the only things being serviced are their
huge salaries, benefits, retirements, unemployment, social and welfare programs, thus ‘Discriminating
Against the Taxpayers', which they've done far too many times. Everyone can't be an attorney, a doctor,
or a business person, and this means we need the textile and furniture manufacturing jobs that America
had before being sold out for politicians' interests. BTW, Sitting on a John Deere, in your home, wouldn't
work and neither will the IOU'S placed in the vault by politicians.
Harry Reid's comments about cutting the 14 trillion dollar debt with a mere couple billion is one more of
their ignorant jokes along with, and I'm quoting, ‘this budget is the hardest job I've ever done!' Guess
what, folks, these people don't know what a hard job is! It's time for these career politicians to be sent
back to where they came from with no salary, no retirements from Taxpayers. Remember, most of them
became politicians because they couldn't make it in the private sector!
As far as Obamacare, this is another mess created to make Taxpayers think they're really doing a job.
These career politicians couldn't care less about Taxpayers future or their insurance, if they did, they
wouldn't be “taking” from Taxpayers and “giving” to people who've never worked and never intend to
work and this is obvious in the Medicare programs, the millions of dollars spent on booklets (that mean
nothing)and you can tell this from the rhetoric. Not only is this ‘Discriminating Against Taxpayers', but it
should be illegal to force anyone to buy anything, as is being done as we speak! Remember, this isn't
their money! It belongs to Taxpayers!
I'm quoting “we'll stimulate the economy with more bailouts and handouts' and once this what politicians
call a recession (Taxpayers call a depression) ends, we'll reduce the deficit!' A little late, wouldn't you
say? Economists and Taxpayers, know the politicians/government workers will never get control of
anything, never have, never will. Take GMAC and the huge bailouts by politicians to ‘as they put it - to
save jobs'? Without textile and furniture manufacturing jobs, no one could buy the cars, anyway, and this
is why GMAC shouldn't have been bailed out with Taxpayers money! According to latest news, GMAC is
recalling another 470,000, plus, cars for possibility of catching fire. Politicians say ‘they're doing so
good!' Really? Chevy Volt (powered out), Cadillac (now Chinalac) and debt isn't being paid as they still
owe Taxpayers trillions on these bailouts. I suppose this is what politicians call ‘creating jobs, huh?'
Time Warner, with Pat McCrory and Walter Dalton, debate was quite interesting. NC Bar Association put
this one on. Taxpayers know the past and what a lot of attorneys, Democrats and Republicans, have
gotten by with, that it's time to cut ties with politicians, who are attorneys, Easley, Perdue and of course,
Dalton, as they're cut from the same mold and this mold has got to stop growing.
While I'm on a roll, it's time to eliminate Senators and Congress people, padlock the doors, send them all
home with no salary or retirement, since they've didn't have a job when they landed this career position
that has destroyed America! It's time to put in place a Governor from each state, who isn't an attorney, so
we can turn America back to being ‘For the People'!
It's really quite simple, folks!
Comment: #24
Posted by: Shirley deLong
Tue Jun 26, 2012 10:43 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Author’s Podcast
|