America’s consciousness has shifted. We live in a predominantly unstable and unpredictable world, a situation long accepted as the norm, however, we also live during the first period of history in which America’s prominence in the world and its own vision and notion of itself, has been blurred. A majority of Americans have adopted self doubt and the confidence America has held through much of its story has been dissipated.
Through the fog of apprehension Americans plucked an unknown to take the helm of their governance. The fog did not lift, and in fact with the unknown’s propagation of envy, the opacity and anxiety intensified and the unknown was reelected.
Unease and apprehension rarely if ever translate into positive decisions. For the Nation, this retrenchment of confidence will not lead to growth where it is most necessary and where it would be most felt — in that part of the population not employed by government and not part of the economic 1%ers.
America was not built on coveting the neighbour’s wealth nor on wealth seizure and redistribution. America was built by the work of many, and it flourished majestically on the grand ideas and on the creativity of a few. Those few were all those creative minds who advanced innovation in their businesses. Those few have been our entrepreneurs who enabled breakthroughs in all areas of human endeavour, lifting the whole to ever greater levels in quality of life.
The self hatred of socialism, that deplorable consequence and tendency of a lazy mind, condemns the independence of thought and heart. It condemns entrepreneurialism and reviles it as a blight on society along with capitalism. As this pernicious socialism creeps toward communism, it imposes stifling taxes and regulations on the very engines which prosperity depends on. We currently have schismatic leadership which has followed the socialist playbook for five years, in attempt to build a society controlled by a self serving political elite.
The disintegration of the single greatest human experiment is accelerated by a complicit mainstream media, unable to find common sense as it drowns in the debris of stupor oiled with the insanity which comes when you believe in your own intellectual superiority. With few exceptions, the liberal media covers for an out-of-control Administration, and lies about the economic conditions of a Nation struggling with stratospheric levels of public and private indebtedness. But don’t stress over your monthly debt payments, after all, statistics indicate that collectively we hold many times more in asset values than the size of our personal debt, so just keep working those two jobs and you’ll survive, . . . OK, three jobs. And when interest rates rise, well, . . . nevermind, you’ll figure it out, really, don’t worry.
Economic literacy is not a prerequisite to grasping the obvious financial realities flooding the neighbourhoods across the Nation. That the Federal Reserve has played a major role in the disintegration of the dollar, in the indebtedness of all Americans and in the disintegration of ‘savings’ is not a secret, and yet the Nation is numbed. The Nation is accepting of an invisible, all-wise, and all-knowing group placing it in a permanent vat of destructive debt, washing an unwilling economy with hundreds of billions of cash it cannot and will not use.
The stupefied populace accepts the government’s insinuation into all areas of life, social, personal, economic and spiritual — it has become the norm that Bernanke and Obama will tell the world anything they politically need no matter how absurd, or prevaricative. Whatever they lay on the Nation, the Nation accepts in its slide into lethargy. For some obscure reason America does not wonder why a small band of unenlightened, uncreative, and ignorant economists wield so much Control, and manipulate markets that natural laws tell us should be Free. Do any of these people understand the entrepreneur? They can’t. The Fed, just as with this Administration, is led by pontificating ideologues and academics splashing around in a confused theoretical quagmire of manipulation.
Two incomes per household has become a necessity whether in marriage or in combination of incomes by two or three friends under one roof, as purchasing power of the dollar has been brutalized by a vapid, self serving, pariah — The Federal Reserve, serving its owners and bountifully satisfying a willfully harmful and oblivious Administration. The days when savings were encouraged have become eclipsed by endemic propagation of debt and the breeding of pervasive risk-taking with our cash. In our indolence, we succumbed.
The two income necessity places an especially vile pressure on single parents, particularly single mothers, literally forcing them into the arms of the government. The majority of them want jobs, want to go to work and would rather not be wholly dependent. It would flow against the grain of human nature for them to feel otherwise, however, the age of massive and invasive government is upon us, and the more people the government can corral into its paddock, and the more difficult the government can make it to escape, the greater the support for the socialist mindset.
We read and hear about a fading “middle class” and that without it, society will slide into feudalism. What middle class? That middle 95% of the population? That’s not the middle class. That’s America. A very few bankers and “Wall Streeters” at the top of the fiat-currency financial food-chain are firmly in control. And you, the middle class — don’t you believe your lying eyes as you witness the legions of unemployed and underemployed in every neighbourhood around you, desperately looking for jobs. Your eyes, your common sense, and your intuition are wrong. Just plain wrong. Everything’s fine. Ignore the fact that for over two generations your wealth has been drained by The Fed, and coagulated into the imperious pockets of its caretakers. The stock market is frothing with exuberance, can’t you see how wonderful things are? Just go meditate yourself into a continued euphoric indifference, or better still, just go back to sleep.
For five years now, we have regularly been provided with a constant flow of evidence pointing to the a politicization of government bureaucracy that now enforces ideologically-sprung mandates. That kind of orchestration and direction can only have come from one place — the White House. Unfortunately, that arrogant, hubristic, and sanctimonious attitude permeated so many of the federal government departments, that a reversal of this monopolistic calcification will prove impossible once any new Administration takes over. Anything and anyone not stepping in line with the socialist ideology and rustling any leaves in political opposition, will find the powers of the DOJ, or the FBI, or the NSA, or the CIA, or the IRS, launched against them.
We are living in an age when the democratic process has been thwarted by ideological bureaucracies stoked by political ambitions. At the same time we have allowed laws to be trampled without regularity of enforcement, and we have stood-by as capitalism became corrupted without recourse.
From the heights of bold confidence led by entrepreneurs forging new paths toward flourishing prosperity where the claim to opportunity was distruted more broadly than ever in its history, America has dissolved into a state of confusion and indecision, with apathy as its next stop to being overrun by the self-hate which embraces and implements the socialist dicta.
A constituent of the vast baby boomer generation with a career which has been fortunate to know the ponderous corporate worlds, as well as the intimately pressurized, and invigorating entrepreneurial domains of high tech and venture capital, I have harvested my share of mistakes meandering through corridors of enterprise from Silicon Valley, to London and endless, colourful, sometimes praetorian points in between. The voyage has provided an abundance of fodder for a pen yielding to an inquisitive keyboard, a foraging mind, and a passionate spirit.
Whether political or business or social or economic or personal, is it not all political? It is a privilege to write, and an even greater privilege to be read by anyone, and sometimes with the wind at my back the writing may occasionally be legible. I do not write to invite scorn, nor to invite respect, but if I get really lucky the writing can stimulate thinking. I also write for the very selfish purpose of animating my own processes, and engaging the best of what life offers. Above all, whether biting fire or swatting shadows, I am grateful to be gifted the freedom to write and publish whatever flows down to the keyboard. To all those who enabled this freedom, and to all those standing guard to preserve it, I am indebted.
Very true. Socialism and its inevitable destination, communism, is a situation where incompetent and small minded bullies force the rest of society to become as mediocre as they know themselves to be. This is why it always fails. A civilization cannot be successful, if it’s being run by mediocre minds.
Investors who have been buying on margin are beginning to expose the stock market bubble for what it is: an artificial construct infused with over $70 BILLION in make-believe money monthly via a Fed trying to hide our national debt problem.
For the first time since 1929 multiple investors have committed suicide.
One just this week, waiting for a high speed train then walking in front of it.
He makes seven of them since January 1st.
Obama’s failed experiment in ”socialism” has only looked good on paper.
It is not only not self-sustaining, it is already falling of its own weight.
Maggie Thatcher said the problem with socialism is that, eventually, you run out of other people’s money.
Obama didn’t even wait for other people’s money.
His spending exceeds all the money collected in all the taxes, fees, fines and penalties PLUS electronically ”printed” money the fed creates to the tune of over $70 BILLION a month!
ObamaCare’s taxes and fees kicked in over the last four years, but all of that hasn’t been enough to support even one year of ObamaCare coverage for the uninsured!
Pundits might claim Obama is changing ObamaCare solely for political purposes, but the truth is he’s happy as a clam that he’s been able to hide the fact that it is broke for a bit longer.
What has Obama wrought?
6.5 million have quit the workplace.
Food stamp recipients are up 46%.
New Americans in poverty are up 23%.
Health insurance premiums are up 17%.
Gasoline prices are up 79%.
Our federal debt is up 55%.
Not to long before the end of WWII most of the German people were well aware what Hitler had brought down on them, funny though, most knew before hand, just like today! Some warned of Obama’s agenda, some foretold of what he would do and why. Why didn’t our people believe, why do a whole lot of them still not believe when seeing with their own eyes? Why is the loyal opposition (read Republicans) not screaming the house down and putting the brakes on him. Some are, but others (leadership) are strangely quiet if not down right complicit. In my opinion the lack of fight has taken a toll on those who see the problem they, just like me, can’t believe it is happening without much of a fight. Is it too late? A good question that must be answered and answered soon. The American spirit has made us a strong Nation with compassion towards others, but that spirit is being dampened by the lack of fight in our leaders. Too bad it was fun and prosperous while it lasted. Will we be like the German people and wake up with their cities, hopes and dreams in shambles, or do we right the ship?
Conservatives here posted predictions of the Dow collapsing since Obama took office. Please try and explain why anyone should now take you seriously? Conservatives enjoy prepping for the disaster that they are always hoping to happen.
Wall Street and capitalists have done very very well under Obama. People working for wages have not done well. Labor and unions have not done as well under Obama. Who here will stand up for the working class?
Up until AFTER his re-election unions and working class people were in the tank for Obama.
Only recently are the scales falling off the eyes of some of the smarter ones.
See page 9 of this PDF report from UniteHere, a 300,000 member strong union that was the 1st union to even endorse Obama back in 2007.
http://cdn.ralstonreports.com/sites/default/files/ObamaCaretoAFL_FINAL.pdf
The graph clearly shows how ObamaCare is being paid for by the lowest income earners (not the bottom 2 tenths because they are on welfare) in disproportionate numbers.
They write:
@Kraken: #1,
Unfortunately, practically every college and university in America preaches socialism in one form or another, subtly and not so subtly. That disease has spread to our schools where children are now being indoctrimated.
“Wall Street” gets confused with the large Corporate too-big-to-fail entities which in turn get mixed-in with entrepreneurs and the small to medium sized businesses which are the life-blood and foundation of our modern society.
Unfortunately, the geniuses of the socialist persuasion seem incapable of understanding and differentiating. So, . . . their mindless bluster spouts, “down with capitalism.” . . . . Clueless.
@Nanny G: #2,
Quite right, and there is no doubt that this enormous bubble will blow.
We’re also not hearing much about the unfunded liabilities which apparently float around $85-90 Trillion. Hiding from it will just leave the mess for our kids and grandkids.
What a vision, . . . a socialist country drowning in debt, unable to get its act together long enough to return to its long lost greatness.
@jainphx: #3,
Yup. Standing-by is being complicit. The Willingness to act on the part of Senators or Congressmen seems to have vacated the premisses.
There appears little energy to do something about spending. There is also no energy to act against those who have broken laws. If only there were term limits, . . . .
@john: I don’t recollect too many predicting the collapse of Wall Street, but many have predicted the implosion of the economy, which is not too far-fetched. The profits of the speculators is a by-product of the infusion of paper into the economy to keep the collapse caused by a nothing-economic policy from actually happening before the next election (and, since there is always another election, the printing presses keep turning). The unions aren’t doing so well because, due to the collapse of Obamacare, there is just not much left for them. They (the unions) were told (wink, wink) that the screwing of the general public would pass over them (just paint a red dollar sign on their lintel); however, they are beginning to see, as the insurance companies are, that they can line up with all the others that have been lied to.
Who will stand up for the working class? Conservatives will, because, through capitalism, classes are dissolved and everyone has the same opportunities to, according to their skills and ambitions, achieve their dreams and goals.
Obama damn sure won’t.
@Bill Burris: #9,
You can’t repeat this often enough.
Socialist liberals cannot fathom the concept that at the foundation of a successful modern society sits the ENTREPRENEUR. Everything starts there. Their companies may employ one or may employ a thousand, and may grow to become an Apple Computer.
Without these creative, energized, gung-ho, determined, risk takers — there are no jobs, there are no taxes, there is no self-actualization on the part of those who would find careers in the businesses the entrepreneurs build, there are no firemen, no policemen, no truck drivers, no longshoremen, no seemstresses, no waiters, and there sure-as-hell are no government employees in the long term and there are no schools.
Sadly, some of the executives now running corporations which have grown large, enjoy buying a seat next to the centers of power — GE comes to mind. When they influence policy and direct government cash their way, . . . all’s good, particularly their bonusses. Those executives are self serving, and only “appear” to support liberal tendencies. The moment their empires, or personal wealth, or influence, or egos get negatively affected — their guns come out.
Ninny G said:
“What has Obama wrought?
6.5 million have quit the workplace.
Food stamp recipients are up 46%.
New Americans in poverty are up 23%.
Health insurance premiums are up 17%.
Gasoline prices are up 79%.
Our federal debt is up 55%. ”
….
Np, that’s the short list of what the GOP has ‘wrought’ due to inaction, obstruction and a record number of filibusters in the history of congress.
@This one: Wow, TO; “I know you are, but what am I?”
Every one of those statistics, but for fuel prices, is a direct result of left wing and, in particular, Mr. Obama’s policies. Fuel prices are reactive to regional situations, but could also be mitigated quite a bit if we were exploring and producing to our maximum capability. To simply turn around and say “no, that’s your fault” with no basis in fact, only the dusty old list of worn out excuses, is pretty weak and thin, This one.
Tell me, without a single Republican vote and the administration preventing a single GOP delay or change of Obamacare, who’s fault is that debacle and subsequent 30 illegal changes, waivers and delays? Who is responsible for a law so terrible that it cannot be allowed to go into effect? Republicans?
@James Raider #7:
“Quite right, and there is no doubt that this enormous bubble will blow.
Hiding from (unfunded liabilities) will just leave the mess for our kids” and grandkids.
Actually not.
Economic cycles will persist, sure, and various bubbles will occasionally burst. But no great era will come to an end. And that is because INFLATION always comes to the rescue.
Deficit spending left unchecked always self-corrects, and it does so way before your grandkids show up.
Printing way too much money can end only one way – in inflation – it’s a supply-and-demand thing. And the REALLY BEAUTIFUL justice of inflation is that it tends to hurt those most responsible for it in the first place. It was the Baby-Boomers who demanded the over-spending but who refused to pay the tab for Wars, Bail-outs and ambitious Social Safety Nets, and it will be THEIR fixed retirement incomes that will be the most adversely impacted by the inevitable inflation that rises from the ashes of their irresponsible spending spree. Inflation WILL pay off existing national debt with reams of inflated dollars that will have DEFLATED value, and there will be more than enough of those freshly-printed, nearly-worthless dollars to do the job.
Inflation doesn’t bother working stiffs that much, because they’ll be bringing home million-dollar-a-month average salaries and paying on 50-million-dollar mortgages. But that $2500/month baby-boomer pension won’t buy a tank of gas, and since that empty tank owner failed to force his political representatives to stop playing fast and loose with his tax dollars, I won’t cry for him.
Liberals who recklessly expanded social programs are not the only ones responsible for this mess. Conservatives who conspired to lower revenues to a trickle by repeatedly cutting taxes as a way to starve those social programs into extinction share the blame. To quote Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliette, “All Are Punished.”
Let’s see:
unsustainable debt
printing of fiat money
companies going out of business or reducing business resulting in higher unemployment
gradual inflation resulting in hyper-inflation
labor union strikes
Ummm, sound familiar to any other historic world event?
@George Wells:
Then you will not cry for yourself?
I suggest you read John Kennedy’s proposal for cutting taxes all across the board to the Economic Club of New York. He would be considered a fiscal hawk by todays Democrat Progressives standards. As to social programs, forced charity is not a Constitutional value. But Democrats have, for the last 80 years, pushed the “social justice” mantra saying that the productive have a responsibility to support the non-productive. Yet, not one Democrat policy has been a success; not Social Security (a true Ponzi scheme), not the War on Poverty, none of them.
@retire05 #15:
Ending social programs, particularly ones already in place and depended upon by many – like Social Security, Welfare, Food Stamps etc. – would risk a truly Marxist Revolution. Regardless of who is to BLAME for it, the dependent class has grown both larger and lazier, and any attempt to undo this trend with a stroke of a pen would be catastrophic well beyond any simple, economic collapse.
(Note: I am NOT saying that ANY of these social programs are good. I AM saying that if these programs are ended and not replaced with humane alternative support for the “have-nots,” the “have-nots” will simply become the “will-takes.”)
One consequence of today’s increasingly disproportionate distribution of wealth is that there are now much larger numbers of poor then there are of rich. If there were not so many in the ranks of the desperately poor, the fortunate class might survive a termination of social benefits. As it stands, however, the predictions of Karl Marx regarding class disparity and revolution seem rather prescient.
(Note that I am NOT making an argument in favor of wealth redistribution, and I am not supporting Communism. I AM pointing out a possible consequence of the imbalance in the current structure.)
“Are there no prisons? Are there no work-houses?” The numbers are now too lopsided for those to work – incarceration is already a failed solution to the young-black-male problem, and the revolution really hasn’t started.
“Then you will not cry for yourself?”
Hardly. I don’t matter. I’ll be gone. But at least in this case I feel a vestige of magnanimity that encourages me to caution those who would bring the house down on their own heads for the want of a quick solution to a very bad and chronic social dilemma. These problems will NOT be fixed in my lifetime, but just maybe enough progress can be made that I’ll miss the big bang.
Instead of pointing fingers (are they not getting tired by now?), propose a comprehensive solution. THAT would be worth discussing.
@George Wells: #13,
Inflation is already here, has been for half a century, and it is the reason your hour of labour now buys you less than it did 20 years ago. While you apparently disagree that we are leaving the mess to our kids, one of the clamities we are ALL facing in the multiple-bubble burst is an acceleration in the rate of inflation.
I agree with you, that the “Boomers” alowed this to occur. In America, both Dems and Reps have taken the easy road and NOT acted when it would have been prudent to do so. Of course, they too listened unknowingly to Alan Greenspan, as he pontificated stupidly from his pertch.
Pretending that “inflation” will come to the rescue, and will principally punish those who created the problem is IMHO, ill-advised. The real manipulators won’t lose anything.
@George Wells:
Of course, but only because decade after decade, we have seen politicians promise to take from the productive and give to the non productive. Why should we be required to support a person who, for any reason other than mental and physical incapable, because they make bad decisions that they are not held accountable for?
Have states enact laws that say if anyone draws any social welfare, other than the Social Security they paid into, will not only have to drug test, but also anyone in their homes will drug test. End the practice of cash being able to be drawn from EBT cards. No purchasing of furniture, which is how welfare recipients manage to but large screen TVs.
Welfare, although I do not support it for any reason other than mentioned above, should be hard to get. It’s not. It should be temporary. It’s not. It should come with requirements on what you can buy with food stamps. If you’re spending my money, I get to tell you how to spend it. It should be denied to illegals, it’s not. There should be a limit on how many children we will support via TANF and AFDC (or whatever it’s called now).
Why am I paying for all those things because people have learned to scam the system and the Democrats seem to promote that?
Get out of my schools. Get out of my business. Get out of my wallet.
@James Raider #17:
“The real manipulators won’t lose anything.”
Of course.
The few powerful are in most cases sufficiently clever to have protected themselves from the consequences of their policies. Else they would never have risen to the… (top?) It is the poor schmucks who bought into the idea that their hard work would be adequately rewarded, who then get robbed by inflation after they can no longer recoup, that get hurt the most. (Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth – just not in THIS lifetime!) The parasites don’t and won’t get hurt – either they get their free lunch or they go out and take it, plain and simple.
“Inflation is already here”
Oh, sure, there have been few episodes of DE-flation, but today’s rate is nothing much to squirm about compared with what is coming. Even the 10-20% range is nothing compared to the hyperinflation some nations have brought upon themselves. We have cause for great concern, and postponing action until the economy improves is irresponsible.
“Pretending that “inflation” will come to the rescue, and will principally punish those who created the problem is IMHO, ill-advised.”
Inflation DOES reduce the real value of each dollar owed. (I’m not pretending. Think this through.) Inflation is a large part of why buying a $200,000 home with a mortgage that will ultimately cost you $600,000 is somewhat rational: the latter payments made on that mortgage will be using dollars that are worth nowhere near as much as the first dollars paid. Anyone lucky enough to take on a huge mortgage just before hyperinflation multiplies his salary wins the lottery. Politicians act as if money grows on trees, well, printing presses, and they count on inflation bailing out the country’s growing debt. Think of what our current National Debt would be as a percentage of GDP if inflation had not driven up our GDP almost as fast as Washington prints dollars! Inflation is not the wisest cure for the malady that is debt, but it is the most politically expedient, and it gets the job done.
@retire05 #18:
” It should come with requirements on what you can buy with food stamps.”
I LARGELY agree with everything you say here. I WILL point out that at least here in Virginia, Food Stamps are VERY tightly controlled regarding what they can be spent on. I stand for hours behind folks in line at Walmart as the clerk tries to figure out whether the allowance for rice can be spent on rice cereal. I didn’t step forward to see exactly what the issued chit was called – maybe it WASN’T a “food stamp” – but whatever it was, it wasn’t a blank check.
But like I said, I agree with the rest of your INCREMENTAL adjustments. Ditto illegal aliens. They are a big enough problem without our giving them free prizes for coming here. Bad policy.
But as soon as you start pointing fingers and BLAMING DEMOCRATS, you lose my support. In general, anyone who gets BLAMED for something will automatically resist efforts to fix that for which he is getting blamed, simply because he is afraid that once the thing gets fixed, your next effort will be to go after HIM for restitution for having caused the problem. Can’t you figure that out?
WE can fix these problem without resorting to the “blame game.” Anyone who makes the “blame game” their focus doesn’t REALLY want to fix the problem. They are just playing games.
@George Wells:
Certainly, but what side of the aisle gave us the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security/ Medicare? Which side of the aisle gave us welfare as we know it (the Great Society) and Medicaid? The only thing I can point to that was enacted (supported by the right) was Medicare Part D which I did not support.
Go after him? How do we go after FDR and LBJ? They’re dead. Long dead. How do you hold George W. Bush liable for Medicare Part D? You don’t. But there are those in office who supported those programs and STILL support them.
Now your side of the aisle wants to make good little proletariats out of our school children with Common Core and Race to the
BottomTop. There is plenty of blame to go around, but it is time to hold all those who are more than happy to redistribute my wealth while hanging on to their own by exempting themselves from the rules and laws we have to follow. It just seems like the majority of them fall on your side of the aisle lately.@George Wells: #20,
What a very liberal politically correct thing to do — don’t look for the source, don’t look for cause, don’t look for the stupidity, don’t look for the ideology, don’t look for intent, . . . . . you might find it and get rid of it. That’s pathetic and certainly an absurd strategy for fixing problems, . . . and the slide to socialism is done. Next stop, . . . well, Marx and Ayers would be proud.
@retire05 #21:
So you agree with me (“Certainly” you said) and yet you cannot stop pointing fingers. Fine. Say “EVERY LAST PROBLEM is the fault of Democrats”, and say it BEFORE you ask for some necessary political cooperation in finding and implementing fixes to those problems. That is one Hell of a fine strategy for insuring that you accomplish absolutely NOTHING. So what if every last problem was caused by Democrats? What does that change? Why can’t you stop pointing fingers?
(You’re still doing it.)
Go after the people who are still in office. Absolutely. But that is still a negative-based strategy. It works regionally, thanks to district gerrymandering, but it doesn’t work nationally because you cannot gerrymander the whole country. Good ideas work a whole lot better. You and yours should try it sometime.
@James Raider #22:
OK, James, you found the source. Good for YOU!!!!
What next. Now that you’ve poisoned the well, how are you going to get anything done? Same question applies to Democrats who can’t get past the fact that some Republican make mistakes. As long as you have your index finger pointing at someone, how much do you think target of that finger is going to cooperate with you? ZIP!
Maybe they should go back to putting a Bible in every night stand at the Republican National Convention instead of copies of “THE ART OF MAKING AND KEEPING ENEMIES.”
@retire05:
It’s interesting to see that you extend your stereotypical blanket demonization of those on public assistance to children. Can one be lazily and shiftlessly born even? Pity the infant born past your limit.
As for “get out of my wallet”, I have to wonder if more federal dollars are exiting than entering. I’m sure you’re aware that those welfare babies are getting about a dollar of public money for every seven people in your demographic get. Yes, you’re living high on the hog, I imagine. A good, safe place, I’m sure, to take shots at the working poor, the uninsured, and those damn welfare babies.
@Tom:
Your cognitive dissonance is showing again, Tom. Exactly where did I blame the children for the stupidity, and irresponsibility, of their parents?
Read your little Newsweek article; odd they never mentioned that seniors have paid, via taxations, for those benefits they are getting. Newsweek makes it sound like the seniors are just leeches who have not contributed to the Ponzi scam that FDR sold the nation under the auspices of a “pension” that was “earned.” But then, seniors were never supposed to live long enough to even collect that money, surely not past the age of 65. Oooops. And then blacks were never supposed to benefit from Social Security and Medicare. As to the children, Newsweek’s totals are a bit off since the average money spent per student in my school district is over $9,000 and that is a low figure nationally.
And where is the parent’s responsibility in their children’s upbringing? We supply free breakfast and free lunch to millions of children every day, and in the summer there is a program that supplies, at least, a healthy lunch comparable with dinner that many children’s parents pay for. Why are we giving parents food stamps to feed children three meals a day when they are only having to supply ONE meal a day?
Actually, I have just the normal middle class home that I purchased for $28,000 25 years ago. It had no central heat or air, and had to be completely remodeled, which I did as I gained the cash to pay for the materials. If that is living “high on the hog” then I stand guilty as charged.
Define poor. I don’t consider the woman who was ahead of me at the grocery store today poor. I had hamburger, chicken breasts and pork chops in my cart. I paid cash. She had T-bones and a lobster, lots of what I consider junk food all paid for with a Lone Star Card. So after you define “poor”, tell me which one of us was shopping beyond our means.
@retire #18:
“There should be a limit on how many children we will support”
As is “per family” or as in “Total number supported nationally per year”? Would the total number restriction (second option) mean that support would be administered on a first-come-first-served basis, or would the number of children supported per family fluctuate each year depending on how many families applied for the benefit?
The first option reminds me of China’s birth limits, while the second reminds me of an immigration quota. The first option would seem to effect a state restriction on reproduction that would apply only to the poor, and I think that any program that would have an effect of limiting reproduction would be difficult to sell here. The second option would harm people differently and arbitrarily no matter how it was administered and would accordingly bring equal protection into question.
Perhaps a slow roll-back of support per child would be more equitable and could accomplish the same goal.
@retire05:
Do you know what cognitive dissonance means? Based on this, I’m going to guess no.
Let’s cut to the chase. The government is stroking you checks. The same spendthrift government you claim to despise for stroking too many people checks. Assuming you are an elderly American citizen from birth, you are as responsible as any other American alive for the fiscal mess you find yourself in. You get your checks, you are likely eligible or using medicare, yet you have no problem trying to exclude others, including poor mothers with children, from the same government teat you’re feeding from. Obviously I could call this hypocrisy, but I assume it’s simply another sad example of the haves trying to screw the have nots. Show me a Right Wing talking point, and i’ll show you the exact same dynamic, from rolling back the VRA to your admitted support for discrimination against homosexuals. Be careful what you wish for. You and Paul Ryan can cut food stamps, for example, but it’s not just Reagan’s 300 pound, black mother of 10 with curlers in her hair Welfare Queen who will suffer. Your code stereotypes tell a tiny fraction of the story. Over $100M in food stamps were redeemed in military commissaries in 2013. Do you want to be our emissary to tell the guy in Afghanistan that his wife and children are a bunch of scammers?
@George Wells:
One of my good friends is the thirteenth child of a couple that were first generation Americans from Germany. Her grandparents settled in Central Texas when it was still considered the out land. Out of the thirteen born to a couple who worked (by Texas standards) a small 200 acre farm, all graduated from high school, seven went on to [work their way through] college, three were career military, three worked jobs until they could afford their own farms. At no time did the family take any government handouts. What has changed?
R – E – S – P – O – N – S – I – B – I- L – I – T – Y
@Tom:
How is one born elderly?
Let me see if I understand you correctly; you are equating those who have been forced to pay into a government system all their working lives to those who are receiving taxpayer largess without ever having paid a dime into the system? How convenient!
Ironically, you don’t see the national disgrace in that. Those Americans, who walk the walk and not just talk the talk, who write a blank check to this nation up to and including, their lives, are forced to take taxpayer charity because we don’t compensate them for the hazardous jobs they do. And which party is it, Tom, that is always wanting to cut spending off the backs of the military?
But hey, maybe the next president will issue an EO that ends the redistribution of wealth and you’ll have to get a job.
@retire05:
No I’m comparing one person who receives an entitlement to another. If you’re against entitlements, don’t cash your checks. Don’t avail yourself of Medicare. SS and Medicare are both long term budgetary nightmares. That’s a clue that what’s being paid in doesn’t cover what’s being taken out. So people like you, people who are all worked up about cutting government spending, should start with those big line items, your check, for example, rather than henpecking the working poor and children for food stamps, which are relative drops in the bucket. If you want to put a dent in the deficit, stop adding to it. I’m kind of sick of paying for ingrates like you anyway.
@Tom:
What you are saying, by calling SS and Medicare “entitlements” when they are no more entitlements than the money your life insurance company pays to your family after years of you paying the premiums, is that seniors are not really deserving of something they paid for for years.
Well, here’s a deal for you; let every senior, at age 65, take every dime out of their SS account that they paid into it and that has been paid a standard rate of interest, and let them manage that money themselves.
Or are they not “entitled” to their own money?
I doubt a loser like yourself paid much for any ingrate.
@retire05:
LOL. I don’t know any insurance company that would have a business model that projects to lose trillions of dollars. Medicare (and Medicade) are the largest deficit drivers over the long haul. SS isn’t looking much better. I don’t begrudge any senior a cent they receive from SS or Medicare. I’ll be happy to get my checks someday. I simply laugh at your miserly hypocrisy. Here you are receiving entitlements that are the largest deficit drivers and you have the gall to suggest indigent newborns, under certain bizarre criteria, should not be eligible for government assistance. What the hell is wrong with you, by the way?
I pay for many ingrates. I am a net payer to the Federal Government, and have been for many years, being employed continuously since i was a young lad (paper-route). Can you say the same?
@retire05 #29:
I am happy for your friend’s family.
And thank you for not pointing fingers.
AS you did not ask any questions or suggest any action, I don’t see that there is anything to answer. But like I said, I’m happy that your friends did well. It is a shame that so many don’t, but the solution to THAT problem doesn’t start with the government, it starts at home.
@retire05 #32:
“Or are they not “entitled” to their own money?”
You KNOW that it is not their money anymore. Social Security monies withheld are tax monies. When you are self-employed, you don’t have an employer paying half of the tax, so you have to pay it all yourself, and you do that on Schedule SE : Self-Employment TAX. No taxes are paid on a quid pro quo basis. Quid pro quo moneys taken are called “fees”.
When you pay into a company pension, it becomes THEIR money, and you HOPE that eventually they will, in effect, buy you an annuity with it. But you don’t get back what you put in plus interest unless you live a long time after retirement, just as is the case if you purchase your own annuity. At death, no residual moneys are paid to your heirs. At the government’s pleasure, it operates Social Security in a similar way. I’m not suggesting it’s a good idea – that’s a different argument better left for later – I’m just saying that Social Security is nothing more than a tax, and once you pay a tax, the money is no longer yours.
@Tom:
Perhaps you would like to show me where FDR sold Social Security as a losing proposition? You see, it was supposed to be self supporting. How you ask? Because you were never intended to collect.
The average age expectancy in 1938 was 55 for a white female, 50 for a white male, and 48 for a black male. That is why retirement age was set at 65.
But wait, wasn’t abortion supposed to be the panacea that would end all those poor, uneducated, unemployed women from having babies that would be born into poverty? Wasn’t that one of the excuses the left used to legitimize supporting abortion on demand? Why would any woman have a baby she could not afford to care for when you on the left have given her another option? Margaret Sanger promised us that women did not want to have babies they could not afford and so abortion should be readily available to American women. Are you telling me that the left’s “reasoning” for abortion was all smoke and mirrors? Oh, that’s right; abortion was supposed to reduce the number of child abuse incidents, as well. Seems that liberal plan also did not work out very well.
I believe in charity, not forced redistribution of wealth by D.C. bureaucrats who are simply pandering for votes to keep their cushy seats.
Nope. Was never a young lad.
@retire05:
I really have to hand it to you, Retire. There is no position of weakness you can’t defend ,no horrible, embarrassing opinion you can’t uphold. So now you’ve found a way to penalize babies who weren’t aborted for the crime of abortion? Retire5 logic: abortion is a horrible sin. By the way, if you have that fourth kid, you won’t qualify for a cent to feed it. Are we having second thoughts about keeping that baby maybe?
@Tom:
Tom, if a woman finds herself pregnant without support from the child’s father, she has the option of turning the child over to an adoption agency.
Oh, wait, LBJ decided that the federal government could be a baby daddy and women didn’t really need to give up the children they could not afford, so the adoption agencies, mostly run by Christian churches, were put out of business. You see, the march to secularism could not be hindered by religious charities that fed the poor, raised those unwanted, unaffordable children, nursed the sick and cared for the elderly. They were doing too good a job doing what the Progressive wing of the Democrat Party wanted to have the federal government do. Progressives don’t like competition for loyalty.
Remember, the Great Society was going to level the playing field and there would be fewer “poor” children in this country. How’s that working out for ya, Bubba?
Oh, yeah, still waiting on you to define “poor.”
@retire05:
And everything you’ve written, despite your hateful and illogical best efforts, means nothing in the face of a newborn baby. Are newborns innocent? You advocate to punish certain cuddly ones for what you deem are their mother’s sins. Furthermore, you propose a policy that would obviously increase abortions. The abortion rate is at a 30 year low, and it’s not because a poor and scared single woman didn’t receive some necessary support FROM THE STATE (gasp!) It’s actually the opposite. Congratulations on being pro-abortion. I say that as someone who is pro-choice.
@Tom:
Hey, Tom, you know the two words I never see in any of your posts supporting your leftist ideals?
PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY
Pregnancy is PREVENTABLE, you clueless clown. If a woman doesn’t want to get pregnant, she can get FREE birth control pills from Planned Parenthood. Or she can demand that the man she is giving her body away to wear a condom.
Still waiting on your definition of “poor.”
@retire05:
I’m pretty sure all that’s completely irreverent to a baby who is born. And babies get born all the time. Or haven’t you noticed? You seem to be having difficulty with human ethics since the dawn of time. I will spell it out for you: you take care of a baby. Period. End of discussion. Even when Retire5 thinks her mom is a slut.
@retire05 #36:
At least 40 million unwanted pregnancies HAVE been legally terminated in the United States. A large number of THOSE would otherwise have been born into poor and/or broken homes where many of the unwanted children WOULD have suffered neglect and abuse. NOTHING can END the tragic suffering of children, but abortions HAVE reduced the numbers of them. Nobody expected otherwise.
@Tom #41:
“Even when Retire5 thinks her mom is a slut.”
Tom, I appreciate all too well the frustration that you feel as Retire05 hurls endless insults our way as she fails to grasp even the most trivial of our arguments, but that comment was unnecessary. It is better to demonstrate that WE do not stoop to HER level of childish name-calling. You reap what you sow.
@George Wells: “Ending social programs, particularly ones already in place and depended upon by many – like Social Security, Welfare, Food Stamps etc. – would risk a truly Marxist Revolution.” I don’t think anyone is promoting ending these programs, as there will always be those who would qualify for compassionate assistance. What is recommended is ending the rampant waste, over-application and replacement of personal responsibility and accountability with them.
Are there really 24 million families who need foodstamps? Are there really 11 million disabled in the US? Are 47 million individuals really living in poverty? Or, is the administration “redistributing” wealth and responsibility and creating more dependency? OR, is it a stark and brutal assessment of the failure of liberal economic polices?
However you look at it, it ain’t good and should be addressed and corrected.
@Tom:
Of course babies should be taken care of. That is my whole point. And millions of parents do exactly that without relying on the nanny state to do it for them.
But you seem to think that giving a check to the parent of a child (yeah, the parent….the child doesn’t get the check,) who has already exhibited irresponsible behavior, without any oversight is a good idea. Who is making sure that the child, who is supposed to be the beneficiary of the largess, is being well fed and well cared for? When Florida wanted to drug test welfare recipients (who are all of legal age) for drugs, the left went nuts. It would seem the left has no problem with welfare recipients getting cash from that EBT card for drugs and not food for children. Perhaps you would like to tell me how, if you are so poor you have to rely on the taxpayers for your support, you can afford drugs, or even alcohol or cigarettes?
Typical leftist response. When you have no valid argument, insult your opposition’s family.
@George Wells:
Can you prove that “a large number” of those babies would have suffered from neglect and abuse? Do you have a crystal ball that allows you to peer into the future of what might have been? Do you think that being born into a poor family guarantees neglect and abuse? Ummm, I bet a lot of people who were born during the Great Depression would argue that point.
Hey, here’s an idea: the Democrats can pretend to be fiscally responsible wanting to reduce the welfare rolls by adopting the motto “Better Dead Than Fed”
@George Wells:
George, while my tone may have been overly combative, I don’t consider what I wrote “name-calling”. I consider it cutting through the BS and labeling her behavior for what it really is: slut shaming. External societal pressures may be great enough for Retire to couch her commentary in seemingly acceptable code language (pressures she obviously doesn’t feel when it comes to her more direct vitriol aimed at gays), but the veneer is paper-thin. Honestly, I’ve read enough of her commentary to feel fairly confident in my assessment. From an anthropological standpoint, Retire is a fascinating study in self-serving, lowest-common-denominator Right Wing thinking. Her arguments on fiscal and social issues (which are usually intertwined) can always be reduced to the mundane panic of a person not wanting to share an advantage. Yes, I’m sure she hates gays for religious reasons, but, gee, limiting their rights sure helps her maintain a relative advantage she’d hate to lose. Her attempts to demonize single mothers and their offspring are even more transparent: “Get out of my wallet”. I suppose an argument could be made for ignoring and therefore dismissing her point of view as isolated, hateful ramblings, but that’s simply not the case. She is articulating a popular point of view with potential real world implications (see Paul Ryan budget). It can be dressed up in religious moral trappings, or in grand, Randian philosophical terminology, but it’s always driven by that same existential panic of the advantaged grappling with insecurity.
@Tom:
What a bunch of left wing, uninformed, blathering. You feel you can insult my mother and justify that? It only shows what a low life you are, who uses the same left wing tactics used by the bulk of your ilk.
“Slut shaming?” Really? How do you apply that to my pointing out a total lack of responsibility for those who are willing to engage in the actions that create children in the first place, but are unwilling to be responsible for the results of those actions?
And just what part of the fiscal and social being intertwined in our nation’s economy do you not understand? And exactly what “advantage” do you think I benefitted from that others did not? Be specific.
Again, another useless, vague statement on your part. Limiting the rights of gays HOW? Yeah, I hate gays so much, Tom, that when everyone in the nation was shaking in their shoes over the “gay cancer” scare, I volunteered at the AIDS Hospital in Houston. Where were you? Were you volunteering to help HIV patients when people still believed (wrongly) that HIV/AIDS could be caught from a toilet seat?
You proved one thing with your last post, better than anyone else could ever do; you hate conservatives. You loath them. You want to crush anyone who doesn’t march lockstep with your Socialist views. Destroy them by insulting their mother by calling their mother a “slut.” Your hatred is palatable. Perhaps you wrote that bit of mental trash by looking in the mirror. I have no idea. But you have a sick, sick mind, Tom.
@Bill Burris #44:
Some of your readers here would kill dead every social safety net they could get their cutlery to. That much is clear by the comments that disparage every progressive achievement since FDR. But oh, and how LBJ is reviled., no?
The numbers of Americans who use – and abuse – assistance are staggering, and a large portion of our economic malaise is directly linked to our inability to get the problem under control. But in the face of pressure to limit government (rather than to expand it) the only viable solution is to simply cut those programs to shreds. Across-the-board tax cuts are the way Republicans choose to get this accomplished – by simply letting the coffers run dry, leaving nothing with which to pay for social programs. I must admit that this is an effective ploy, as most voters’ greed compels them to overlook the consequences of “tax relief”.
But yes, the problem DOES need fixing, but not with a hammer.
@George Wells:
And exactly where did our Founding Fathers, who created this thing we call These United States of America, make provisions for “social” programs? Where did any of their writings, and they were extensive, talk about our shared responsibility to take care of others by handing the non-productive a check every month?