Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Gridlock...........

About gridlock …

According to a recent poll, most Americans want the Senate bi-partisan debt reduction committee to focus on economic solutions rather than maintaining hard line ideological bickering.

What does this mean, exactly? 

For one thing, it suggests that the socialist brainwashing of the American people has been a very successful project.  Who decides what’s best for the country?  If you happen to support communist ideology, then the answer is one or all of the following: Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Hairy Reid, Barney Frank, or Chris Dodd —but what about the rest of us?

There are no simplistic solutions to complex issues, but brain-dead Americans prefer the simple, expedient, and self-gratifying.  It is the perfect solution for their responsibility-avoidance system: spend, spend, spend —my grandchildren can pay for it.  They much prefer political fairy tales that begin with “My fellow Americans,” and end with “… and everyone lived happily ever after.”

It also means that brain-dead Americans will once more expect conservatives to move a few more paces to the left —you know, for the good of the Nation The problem is that conservatives have been moving left for far too long; the lines between capitalism and communism have become blurred —and this is why we are facing the devastating problems we see today.

Meanwhile, leftist media continues to shill for the communists by making sure public opinion stands in opposition to conservative principles —hawking, as they do, that the GOP are terrorists, or the Tea Party represents extremism, racism, etc..  Not once will these noddy Americans ask themselves, “What is so wrong with a balanced budget amendment?  What’s so wrong with less government?”

Why does no one expect the damn communists to give up their Marxist-Leninist principles?  In this war of ideas, conservatives must initiate a more robust public relations campaign to inform and educate the pathetically under-educated population about our time-honored values.  If we intend to win this war of ideas, then conservatives must demonstrate that conservative principles remain relevant.  If properly informed, most Americans will find they do agree with the principles that make America exceptional......................

MUSTANG SENDS

Thanks, Mustang.......we can only hope.

78 comments:

MK said...

Well said, ultimately the change has to come from the voters, if they keep demanding true conservative candidates, eventually the political parties will have to put them forward.

I know it's better over there, but out here most of us cannot even contemplate a small, restrained and despised government.

Always On Watch said...

The Leftist brainwashing of Americans has been going on for at least two generations now via the education system and the media. The mission has been accomplished! **sigh**

brain-dead Americans prefer the simple, expedient, and self-gratifying

Once people rely on various entitlements, they will continue to vote those entitlements.

We have reached the point that the tax base cannot support our ever-burgeoning government (federal, state, local). The path we are on is clearly not a sustainable one. Yet, Americans go along their merry way and whistle past the graveyard.

Silverfiddle said...

Yes indeed. Compromise? Compromise is what has brought us to this brink of financial calamity.

Scott Walker in Wisconsin shows us the way: Go at the progressives head on.

Poor libbies have blown over $50 million on all these riots and recall, with nothing to show for it...

beamish said...

It also means that brain-dead Americans will once more expect conservatives to move a few more paces to the left —you know, for the good of the Nation

And the far left commies known as the Tea Party will continue in that regard. Screw a few paces to the left - the Tea Party sprints leftward post haste whenever there's any talk of shutting down Social Security, Medicare, or any other debt-generating "entitlement." And so the problem remains in this 2/3rds leftist land of socialists - the international socialists who want to give welfare to everybody and the national socialists who want to have welfare as long as border jumpin' Mexicans don't get any - and the remaining third of America from which you might find conservatives and reactionaries, none of whom are Tea Party members.

Passing the buck to the next generation is turning into a plea that that next generation will mercifully kill us in our sleep when they figure out grave digging is a shovel ready job.

Thersites said...

Let's assume for a moment that you're right beamish, that there are NO conservatives in the Tea Party and that everyone involved in it seeking to "preserve" their Roosevelt era entitlements.

They're still attacking the LEFT and preventing them from piling NEW entitlements on top of the Roosevelt ones and bringing the whole system crashing down.

Once they've accomplished that goal, wouldn't THAT be the right time to start taking THEM on, not NOW?

Just sayin'... unless you think bringing down the WHOLE system is the better option.

Ducky's here said...

I'm going to be informed by a man who thinks Tim Geithner is a Marxist?

Are you even conscious?

Joe Conservative said...

Geithner isn't a communist. He's just one of your "useful idiots".

Mustang said...

Dr. Sowell agrees. Barack Obama is betting the farm that American voters are incapable of making the connection between what Obama has done, and the likely consequences of his actions, now and in the future. This makes Obama even more dangerous that we might have earlier imagined. Meanwhile, shills continue to downplay the role Alinsky/Cloward-Piven acolytes are playing in this drama; but we know the truth —and so does Ducky.

beamish said...

Thersites,

I just think conservatives ought to give up on their satanic marriage of church and state...

So yes, bring the whole government-run social entitlement system down. Especially if you believe in separation of church and state. ;)

Mustang said...

Beamish, I think you are using an overly broad brush if you accuse most Christians of enabling the communist left. While most conservatives are overwhelmingly Christian, that hardly associates them with the black theology of Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan. If your point is that too many Christians have fallen for the social justice hype on the left, then I think you are right about that —but hardly “all” Christians are guilty of this. Many Christians do realize that true charity originates with and best maintained through local community chests, but this doesn’t address the reality of where we are today. Roosevelt knew damn well that once started, disengaging from social security would be either impossible or difficult. What was Lyndon Johnson thinking? Disengagement is ultimately where this is going, but it will take another fifty years …

Z said...

MK....let's hope they demand and produce candidates worth demanding. Although, by this time, it's "ABO" Anybody BUT Obama.....

AOW....The mission really has been accomplished. When we thought we won the Cold War, so many of us realized they'd come in through our schools; nukes were put aside, erosion of decency and the American spirit were then up for destruction by Communists.

How does a country wean people off of entitlements?

SF, I have to admit I haven't heard a thing on this recall votes....I need to find out what's happened in Wisconsin.

beamish, this is getting laughable; sorry, but when the only bunch of people who're fighting are labeled by you as 'commies' it's getting a little weird and a really good point for leftists to use as fodder for insults too, as they join your bandwageon..

Thersites, Exactly; you said it better than I did.

Ducky, no, we don't expect you to get informed. By anybody.

Thersites said...

No argument on the "Goal" here except to ask whether or not NOW is the time to grab Kairos by the forelock and push the system over. Has "the majority" painfully learned their lesson, yet? Because until the actual mistake (and not some tale of a tub) is seared into the American collective consciousness, we'll continue to secularly err on the side of Grace". And personally, I don't think that THAT is possible until we've suffer a consequence even GREATER than that of the Great Depression.

Europe, most certainly, has learned NOTHING. But then historically, they've never really ever had a true separation of church and state.

Z said...

Mustang, not with the entitlement mentality our kids have now...I don't see that ever changing...HOW?


Thersites; actually, France and Germany have gone more downhill since churches have shrunken. Church still plays a fairly strong roll in classrooms in Germany but not as much as it did. Odd how much better character Germans had when they were raised with mandatory religion classes. France's Catholic churches are still fairly well attended but not by many young people.
Ya, the Europeans have become too cool for faith and we're seeing a real downturn...oh, in England, too, even MORE there, probably.
BUt, I'm talking CHARACTER, not ENTITLEMENTS.
Thought, back in the day, people sought less entitlement from gov't when they were more about strong values, hard work, and belief in GOD.

Thersites said...

Well the State in Europe, Z, has picked up far more of the Churches responsibilities than in the USA.

Government should always be an "expedient/" temporary measure... never a permanent fixture central to our lives.

Thersites said...

Personally, I think that the Tea Party is starting to see Europe's excesses (like the current riots) for what they are, an excess of liberalism. I think we might be at a "teachable" moment that can AVOID the Greek style meltdown.

But I could also be wrong.

Z said...

Thersites, that is true, indeed. They subsidize the churches through incredibly high public taxes, by the way.
This is why Americans don't think Germans attend church. They DO attend in bigger numbers than we know but they say they don't go to church because the tax is so high it's laughable...I'll try to find out, I think it's about 20%.......If you decline church affiliation, you don't pay the tax, but they don't check at the door. and the schools still have crosses on the walls.

As I said, my point is more about CHARACTER than government reliance. Germany was always religious; it wasn't a "Let's subsidize schools TODAY" kind of thing; they just went hand in hand and I'd say what a fine culture, astonishingly productive and good people they spawned....

There is much Americans don't understand about Europe...MUCH. One is if someone calls NAZIS Christians...ridiculous, but I won't 'go there'. Just wanted to mention it to put that to rest.

Thersites said...

Obama and the Democrats have given America the opportunity to stare into the abyss and take stock of their values. Which road we go down is still a matter of serious contention.

Z said...

Thersites, except that the left's saying things like "it's the Tea Party's fault we could get like GREECE"

hilarious

Thersites said...

...a tale of a tub, indeed. ;)

Thersites said...

They subsidize the churches through incredibly high public taxes, by the way.

Now contrast that fact with the American "tradition" as described in Madison's "Memorial and Remonstrance"...

Thersites said...

Is the "Social Security Tax" a religious assessment? Beamish could very well be right in thinking that it is.

Thersites said...

...or is it a form of "mandatory commerce"? Ala requiring you to BUY a social "insurance policy" (see the current Constitutional arguments against Obamacare).

sue said...

Hairy Reed: (-:

Thersites said...

If Beamish is right, the Social Security Tax is a violation of BOTH the "Establishment Clause" and the "Free Excercise Clause" of the 1st Amendment.

Thersites said...

It's a slippery slope with very little firm-dry ground in sight.

Z said...

Most of us don't like the concept of Soc Sec, Thersites...and have said so.
But most of us are realistic to know you mustn't pull the rug out from people who depend on it; whether it makes them weak because they counted on seeing something of what they had to put aside (by government mandate) isn't valid; we need to do a slow pull-out; and I believe it can be achieved.
But it'll never be STARTED with the Left still in charge.

Thersites said...

But even the idea of trying to "privatize" Social Security now appears to be a Constitutional "commerce prohibition" busting way of opening the door for Obamacare... a Trojan Horse.

Thersites said...

So I suppose that this is where "Conservatives" step in and head the words of both Euripides and Pascal...

Euripedes Hecuba - I may be a slave and weak as well, but the gods are strong, and custom too which prevails o'er them, for by custom it is that we believe in them and set up bounds of right and wrong for our lives. Now if this principle, when referred to thee, is to be set at naught, and they are to escape punishment who murder guests or dare to plunder the temples of gods, then is all fairness in things human at an end.

Pascal's "Pensees" - The result of this confusion is that one affirms the essence of justice to be the authority of the legislator; another, the interest of the sovereign; another, present custom, and this is the most sure. Nothing, according to reason alone, is just in itself; all changes with time. CUSTOM CREATES THE WHOLE OF EQUITY, FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT IT IS ACCEPTED. IT IS THE MYSTICAL FOUNDATION OF ITS AUTHORITY; WHOEVER CARRIES IT BACK TO FIRST PRINCIPLES DESTROYS IT. NOTHING IS SO FAULTY AS THOSE LAWS WHICH CORRECT FAULTS. He who obeys them because they are just, obeys a justice which is imaginary, and not the essence of law; it is quite self-contained, it is law and nothing more. He who will examine its motive will find it so feeble and so trifling that if he be not accustomed to contemplate the wonders of human imagination, he will marvel that one century has gained for it so much pomp and reverence. The art of opposition and of revolution is to unsettle established customs, sounding them even to their source, to point out their want of authority and justice. We must, it is said, get back to the natural and fundamental laws of the State, which an unjust custom has abolished. It is a game certain to result in the loss of all; nothing will be just on the balance. Yet people readily lend their ear to such arguments. They shake off the yoke as soon as they recognise it; and the great profit by their ruin, and by that of these curious investigators of accepted customs. But from a contrary mistake men sometimes think they can justly do everything which is not without an example. THAT IS WHY THE WISEST OF LEGISLATORS SAID THAT IT WAS NECESSARY TO DECEIVE MEN FOR THEIR OWN GOOD; and another, a good politician, "Cum veritatem qua liberetur ignoret, expedit quod fallatur."


Our liberty is a frog in the slow-boil soup of Socialism.

Thersites said...

erratum - 'heed' for 'head' above

Z said...

Thersites said...

But even the idea of trying to "privatize" Social Security now appears to be a Constitutional "commerce prohibition" busting way of opening the door for Obamacare... a Trojan Horse"

'splain, please. How?


Excellent and pertinent quotes there, Thersites...

"Our liberty is a frog in the slow-boil soup of Socialism."

And we have 'journalists' like Lawrence O'Donnell, fairly mainstream for years, suddenly unabashedly announcing he is a socialist on MSNBC. And Americans have come to the point that they simply DON'T CARE, apparently...and even applaud people like Bill Maher who STILL think Europeans get FREE HEALTH CARE! (The only Europeans who get free health care are the same recipients of free health care in AMerica: the very poor and illegals, TRUST ME...and that FREE HELATH CARE in Germany and France costs each taxpayer (for themselves and the poor and illegals) approx 35% in income tax. NO kidding. What American media NEVER ONCE told you is that Gerhard Schroeder, near the end of his reign, of course, was BEGGING Germans to buy private insurance ON TOP of their 35% in ins. taxes:-) (Ah, that pesky US Media who won't tell you something they'd rather you don't know)

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/lawrence-odonnell-explains-his-brand-of-socialism-i-hate-bad-socialism/

check that out...I"m too lazy to hyperlink it, but the video's worth a watch.

Maher displays why I used to find him hilarious: He calls the Bachmanns "The indoor Palins" which is REALLY funny, you have to admit! The rest of it, he gets so much wrong and is so smug, any thinking American will just want to punch his face.

Thersites said...

'splain, please. How?

Sure...

The Individual mandate in Obamacare to require everyone to buy private health insurance is currently under "Constitutional Review" and will make it's way to the Supreme Court... for as one judge has stated

"It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America, would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place."

So how could they force you to buy private "retirement insurance"? (A "privatized" alternative to a Social Security Tax)?

Impertinent said...

" I think we might be at a "teachable" moment that can AVOID the Greek style meltdown."


But can we avoid an Oslo moment?

Thersites said...

...and yes, I have a hard time dealing with Maher's smugness. He has the liberal equivalent of the "Bush Smirk".

Impertinent said...

"any thinking American will just want to punch his face."


Or better yet....go the way of way of bath tub boy into oblivion..or eternal blasé bliss.

Thersites said...

But can we avoid an Oslo moment?

Only time can tell. ;)

Z said...

Thersites, I don't think Bush even KNOWS how to be as smug and ugly as Maher. And I was a HUGE fan of Maher when he first came on the scene and left his politics and appalling insults to CHristianity at home.


Re Social Sec. and Obama Care...I get what you're saying, I think.
How can we have been accepting of Social Security all these years and suddenly say "The government can't force us to........" ??
Or pay taxes, right?
Or a LOT of other things.

ugh

Thersites said...

The US Constitution "says" whatever the US Supreme Court tells us it says... today. As the liberals are fond of pointing out, "it's a living document."

Thersites said...

...and the auspice takers don't always read the entrails and droppings correctly. ;)

beamish said...

Z,

I find it excessively far more laughable to label a group "conservative" that currently backs a blue state tax attorney / welfare state foster "mom" as the "great white hope" to defeat Obama. This after giving us Ron Paul, Donald Trump, and Herman Cain as "conservatives."

All you need to know about the ignorance of what conservatism actually is among these ex-Democrats / commies calling themselves the "Tea Party Movement" is presented whenever you strain their minds with questions like "what is conservative about Michelle Bachmann?" or "how fast will the recession end under Ron Paul's gold standard?"

Of course, they'll jump out of deer-in-the-headlights mode and rave about how they "did something" like gather with others under a forest of mispelled slogan signage or spent part of their Social Security check supporting candidates in someone else's district or state, but they'll never, ever get around to telling you what is "conservative" about themselves or their "movement."

And it's because they all fail the sniff test. I am not a "Tea Party" member because I want to beat the left, not join it.

Z said...

Beamish..sorry. I don't know who YOU're asking, but every conservative I know could tell us what's Conservative about any Conservative like Bachmann in comparison with the left.

Are you thinking that by writing these comments constantly saying the TP people are Lefties, we're all going to have a hand/head moment and think you're right? It isn't going to happen.
Most of us see a BIG difference between the Tea Party and Obama and other leftwingers.

It might be as small government as Beamish wants but most of us are realistic enough to know that things don't change over night and that, right now, ANYTHING is better than anybody LIKE Obama, let alone Obama.

Thersites said...

Please beamish, educamate us.

What is a "REAL" conservative, in your opinion? Attila the Hun?

Thersites said...

...because I model my "conservative" message on Franklin and Madison. But I could just as easily model it upon de Maistre. So give us a model. Edmund Burke? Thomas Jefferson? Archie Bunker?

Thersites said...

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." -- Benjamin Franklin

"Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." -- James Madison

"There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. " -- James Madison, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention [June 16, 1788]

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one...." -- James Madison, letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792

"Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks -- no form of government can render us secure. To suppose liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea. If there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men. So that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them. -- James Madison, Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 20, 1788

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson: With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. If the words obtained so readily a place in the "Articles of Confederation," and received so little notice in their admission into the present Constitution, and retained for so long a time a silent place in both, the fairest explanation is, that the words, in the alternative of meaning nothing or meaning everything, had the former meaning taken for granted.

Thersites said...

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." -- James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)

Resolved, That the General Assembly of Virginia, doth unequivocally express a firm resolution to maintain and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of this State, against every aggression either foreign or domestic ... That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.-- James Madison, 1799

" The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." -- James Madison, speech in the House of Representatives, January 10, 1794

Z said...

Thersites...."attila the hun"..."Archie Bunker" :-)
good question:

Let's see what happens...come on Beamish!!

Elmers Brother said...

Perhaps there will be a Great Awakening

Joe Conservative said...

Either that, or we'll bring back the old bush-edo code, complete with chonmage and katana's. ;)

Z said...

that's a great awakening? What did I miss? :-)

Speedy G said...

Great Awakening, perhaps, for the rest of America that hasn't been watching the Left flush us down the sewer over the past century with death of a thousand cuts socialism.

Speedy G said...

Death of a thousand earmarks socialism? ;)

Elmers Brother said...

The writer is on to the fact that Liberalism got the British where they are and perhaps we could awaken before it gets that bad.

Z said...

Elbro, we COULD awaken but we WON'T.

Elmers Brother said...

I'm not giving up

beamish said...

Do not conservatives eschew ideology and enthrone reason? How then can you count those who seek to make a hopelessy bad idea (government entitlement programs) continue to drain away American prosperity among them?

I have no "model" conservative. I can only tell you that those that can not answer the "who's going to take care of the people who need government handouts to survive if government handouts are eliminated" question are less likely to be conservative.

Because the answer is simple. "Whoever the hell feels like it."

God has given people who do not work plenty of bugs to eat. I don't see what the big deal is.

beamish said...

So it's not a matter of the welfare state not being obliterated fast enough, but rather that it's never going to be obliterated at all as long as people keep deciding that working for less pay via income and payroll tax increases are a better option than raising the Social Security retirement age to a more economically viable range, like say 1478 years old.

Speedy G said...

That was an unhelpful answer beamish. Not even Pascal or Euripide's "Hecuba" would agree with your prescription, as their is no "justice" in it, and there is no path to it.

Lay out a path, and we'll talk. Till then, "better" is the enemy of "good enough".

Thersites said...

btw- Your current model actually very closely resembles Diogenes of Sinope... so get out of your sunning tub and go put on some clothes.

beamish said...

Not so, Thersites. There is a measure of justice in nobody being robbed via taxation for entitlement programs after they've been obliterated and thus have more money and income to dispense and dispose of as they see fit.

It's certainly a better solution than the current crop of Ida May Fullers in the neo-communist Tea Party reciting Lewis Carroll's Walrus and the Carpenter and crying about the hard-working oysters they had to eat to support their $1500 a month prescription drug habit.

beamish said...

The Walrus and The Carpenter

Lewis Carroll

(from Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There, 1872)
The sun was shining on the sea,
Shining with all his might:
He did his very best to make
The billows smooth and bright--
And this was odd, because it was
The middle of the night.

The moon was shining sulkily,
Because she thought the sun
Had got no business to be there
After the day was done--
"It's very rude of him," she said,
"To come and spoil the fun!"


The sea was wet as wet could be,
The sands were dry as dry.
You could not see a cloud, because
No cloud was in the sky:
No birds were flying overhead--
There were no birds to fly.
The Walrus and the Carpenter
Were walking close at hand;
They wept like anything to see
Such quantities of sand:
"If this were only cleared away,"
They said, "it would be grand!"
"If seven maids with seven mops
Swept it for half a year.
Do you suppose," the Walrus said,
"That they could get it clear?"
"I doubt it," said the Carpenter,
And shed a bitter tear.
"O Oysters, come and walk with us!"
The Walrus did beseech.
"A pleasant walk, a pleasant talk,
Along the briny beach:
We cannot do with more than four,
To give a hand to each."
The eldest Oyster looked at him,
But never a word he said:
The eldest Oyster winked his eye,
And shook his heavy head--
Meaning to say he did not choose
To leave the oyster-bed.
But four young Oysters hurried up,
All eager for the treat:
Their coats were brushed, their faces washed,
Their shoes were clean and neat--
And this was odd, because, you know,
They hadn't any feet.
Four other Oysters followed them,
And yet another four;
And thick and fast they came at last,
And more, and more, and more--
All hopping through the frothy waves,
And scrambling to the shore.


The Walrus and the Carpenter
Walked on a mile or so,
And then they rested on a rock
Conveniently low:
And all the little Oysters stood
And waited in a row.
"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--
Of cabbages--and kings--
And why the sea is boiling hot--
And whether pigs have wings."
"But wait a bit," the Oysters cried,
"Before we have our chat;
For some of us are out of breath,
And all of us are fat!"
"No hurry!" said the Carpenter.
They thanked him much for that.
"A loaf of bread," the Walrus said,
"Is what we chiefly need:
Pepper and vinegar besides
Are very good indeed--
Now if you're ready, Oysters dear,
We can begin to feed."
"But not on us!" the Oysters cried,
Turning a little blue.
"After such kindness, that would be
A dismal thing to do!"
"The night is fine," the Walrus said.
"Do you admire the view?


"It was so kind of you to come!
And you are very nice!"
The Carpenter said nothing but
"Cut us another slice:
I wish you were not quite so deaf--
I've had to ask you twice!"
"It seems a shame," the Walrus said,
"To play them such a trick,
After we've brought them out so far,
And made them trot so quick!"
The Carpenter said nothing but
"The butter's spread too thick!"
"I weep for you," the Walrus said:
"I deeply sympathize."
With sobs and tears he sorted out
Those of the largest size,
Holding his pocket-handkerchief
Before his streaming eyes.
"O Oysters," said the Carpenter,
"You've had a pleasant run!
Shall we be trotting home again?'
But answer came there none--
And this was scarcely odd, because
They'd eaten every one.

Thersites said...

Update on the Constitutionality of Obamacare...

Thersites said...

There is also a measure of justice in letting those that paid hundreds of thousands of dollars into the system to continue to collect benefits and not throw them into the street tomorrow.

So THAT's your plan. 'F 'em. Suckers.... ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha

Good luck finding like minded supporters for it, "conservative" or otherwise.

Thersites said...

...and if you want to raise the retirement age, fine. Starting when and for who? You can't make plans for retirement unless there are some certainties nailed down.

Don't be like the President, beamish. Put your plan on the table.

Thersites said...

...and if you want to phase-out Social Security, THAT's fine, too. But what are you going to replace it with? What are your new tax rules going to be for 401k's, IRAs (Roth & Conventional)... especially during the transition period?

I'm 54 beamish. Do I need to double down on my 401K? Triple down?

Inquiring minds NEED to know... last week.

Thersites said...

btw - You could lower the SS retirement age to 55, and tens of millions of people would retire immediately, opening up those high-paying senior jobs to younger people in the economy...

which is why I suspect the FDR REALLY created Social Security... to solve a jobs problem during his own presidency.

beamish said...

Don't be like the President, beamish. Put your plan on the table.

Well, it's simple really.

First, we start with what we know, which is that after the second year of retirement, the overwhelming majority of Americans on Social Security have already collected every penny they ever paid into the system throughout their lifetimes, and are at that point parasites drawing benefits they are not "entitled" to at the public's expense.

So, we shut down the Social Security system in total. We stop paying out monthly checks, and we stop collecting payroll taxes for it.

But then we must take the crucial step of making it fair. First, we repay back everyone alive that isn't retired every penny they ever paid into Social Security.

Then we pay off the balance of the microscopicaly small number of retirees on Social Security that haven't recieved back what they paid in over their lifetimes yet. Give them back what they paid in minus what they've already recieved.

Then we have to recoup our losses. We have to force those people on Social Security who have been living off money they didn't pay in (i.e. those retired for more that 2 years) to pay back their il-gotten gains. Repossess their cars and homes. Sell their clothing in auction. Assess and confiscate the full market value of the blood in their veins and arteries. Take their skin for grafts on burn victims. See how much hitting them in the heads with hammers will advance research in the fields of metallurgy and pain management. It's time for these freeloaders to earn their keep.

No more government subsidization of retirement means exactly that. You want to retire? Do it on your own dime.

beamish said...

...and if you want to phase-out Social Security, THAT's fine, too.

No phase-out. It must stop immediately.

But what are you going to replace it with?

An indifferent smirk.

What are your new tax rules going to be for 401k's, IRAs (Roth & Conventional)... especially during the transition period?

No transition period. No tax rule changes. You just get back what you've paid into the Social Security / Medicare system IF you haven't depleted that amount already as the vast majority of retirees in America already have.

I'm 54 beamish. Do I need to double down on my 401K? Triple down?

I'd stay away from the stock market right now if I were you. Hopefully your 401(k) didn't take a big hit this past week.

But, since you're not retired, under my plan you'd get every cent you paid into Social Security and Medicare back in one lump sum you can do whatever you want with.

beamish said...

In other words, I care less about the plight of retirees that would be hurt without Social Security and Medicare than they cared about who would have to pick up the tab for their Social Security and Medicare.

I didn't promise an easy retirement to you, FDR did. Go knock on his tomb.

Thersites said...

one lump sum you can do whatever you want with.You can send my $250k directly to me. The interest on that that I LOST over the last 36 years, you can shove up your *ss!

Thersites said...

from Wiki:

However, the impact is much greater for the future retiree (in 2045) than for the current retiree (2005). The male earning $95,000 per year and retiring in 2045 is estimated to lose over $200,000 by participating in the Social Security system.

So much for the myth of all those "greedy" Social Security beneficiaries.

Thersites said...

PS - ...that $14T in national debt that needs to get paid back... just send us all our T Bills and take the SSA's name off of them.

beamish said...

There is also a measure of justice in letting those that paid hundreds of thousands of dollars into the system to continue to collect benefits and not throw them into the street tomorrow.

And who is that? The maximum Social Security taxable earnings is currently $106,800 - and the Social Security tax rate for employees is 6.2%

6.2% of the maximum amount of annual incomer subject to that Social Security tax ($106,800) is $6621.60

$6621.60 is the most anyone making $106,800 or more a year will pay into Social Security this year.

It would take 15 years at that rate for someone making $107K or more a year to have paid in just $100,000. 30 years to pluralize that into more than one "hundred of thousands."

Obviously in a country where the average annual income is barely over $40K, the people making $107K or more a year are a smaller grouping.

There simply isn't that many people that have paid "hundreds of thousands" into Social Security, and those that have are in the upper tiers of income in America anyway.

It wouldn't take much to pay back everything people have contributed into Social Security, and in fact most retirees have already gotten that back and then some, especially once you account for their Medicare bennies. You're making a plea for a group that largely doesn't exist.

Justice? I don't care if Granny is eating dog food, as long as she paid for the damned dog food with her own money.

beamish said...

one lump sum you can do whatever you want with.You can send my $250k directly to me. The interest on that that I LOST over the last 36 years, you can shove up your *ss!

Don't blame me. President Grant wasn't willing to finish dismantling the Democratic Party when he stomped down the Ku Klux Klan.

beamish said...

For every one Thersite that has had $250K taken from his lifetime of income for Social Security, there are hundreds that didn't pay near that amount in, but will live long enough to get more than that out of it.

There are more Ida May Fullers than there are Thersiteses to pay for them.

Thersites said...

The employer must MATCH the 6.2 % beamish. The self-employed must pay the MATCHING contribution. It's NOT 6.2% beamish, it's 12.4%

Thersites said...

The government currently sucks up 12.4% of every dollar you make.

Now run these numbers...

...report reveals that over an adult's working life, high school graduates can expect, on average, to earn $1.2 million; those with a bachelor's degree, $2.1 million; and people with a master's degree, $2.5 million.

Persons with doctoral degrees earn an average of $3.4 million during their working life, while those with professional degrees do best at $4.4 million.

Thersites said...

The "typical" stiff contributes $150K and will die long before HE gets his money back. His wife, on the other hand... will live MUCH longer and "may" get "His" money back AND a "little" interest.

He'll retire at 67 (yes, they already RAISED the retirement age) and die at 75. She'll die at 80.

Thersites said...

...and yes, anyone who had invested his money in a private fund all those years he'd been paying Social Security taxes would be a multi-millionaire at retirement taking interest compounding into accout.

beamish said...

There's more to account for. What percentage of workers are "self-employed" or were before they retired? How about that self-employment? Were they self-employed from the good old days when penny candy actually cost a penny until the day they retired? We also know even at that the 12.4% rate wasn't always so. The rate has increased, so there's a very good chance less of their past income went into Social Security and Medicare across the board.

The net effect is the people who actually see a loss on their "lifetime investment" in Social Security comprise a negligible number compared to the overwhelming majority of retired who will see everything they paid in over their life in the first two years of their retirement or less. And that negligibly small set of people who have paid in more than they'll ever get back were high income. They aren't the mythical grannies eating dog food to get by.

In the final conclusion once you've looked at the big picture, the overwhelming majority of people living on their so-called "entitlements" didn't even pay for those in their lifetimes. The "I paid in all my life" argument presented by America's silver-haired welfare children is largely utter bullshit and should be regarded as such.

We shouldn't be concerned that they might get screwed. We should be screwing them as hard as we can. They are the ones who have destroyed America's economy. F 'em.