Social Security and Democrats: Democrat Plan to Destroyo Social Security

Remember FDR? My mother does. She is now 89, but she was a lifelong Democrat because of FDR. My mother can't stand Obama and modern Democrats. Why not? Wolll, and this did not come from me, she knows President Obama is out to kill her (change health care in a way that kills peole like her--requiring a lot of expensive treatment). But that is not even the main ting. She looks at modern Democrats, including Obama, as people wo want to GIVE people things for noting, and who (like she remembers Herber Hoover--at least partly correctly) have more concern about illegal immigrants , other POLITICAL groups, public employee unions and OTHER COUNTRIES thana they do for the ordinary citizen of the United States (of whatever color or crred). My mother, rightly or wrongly, remembers that FDR insisted that people WORK for what they got. My mother is proud to remember that FDR was against the conflict of interest represented by public employee unions (which FDR opposed). My mother correctly regards President Bush as barely different than President Obama, and believes that Obama is continuing Bush policies. No, this does not come from me. My mother--during the Bush Presidency and afterward--ha tried to GIG me by accusing me of being a Bush lover--even though I finally disowned him in 2006. My mother DESPISES President Bush so much that she even despises the inoffensive Laura Bush, but despises Obama even more because she believes (correctly) that Obama has taken Bush insanity to a new level. The point is that even mo mother, for whom FDR ws God, sees through the DESTRUCTION of the original FDR concept by present day Democrats (which too many Reupblicans have bought into). My mother was familiar with the original FDR consceopt of a SELF-SUSTAING Social Security system where people would PAY into a "trust fund" to pay out benefits. My mother correctly believes that politicians of bouth paries are tuning Social Seucrity into nothing more than a Big Government WELFARE progarm, which can only end in its destruction as the program that FDR sold to her and the country. (My own positioin is that Social Security was flawed from the beginning, because people did not OWN a retirement account--which made it inevitable that eventaully Social Security would be tkurned into noting more than a Big Government "social program", paid for by general taxpayers. But that does not make it RIGHT that my prediction is coming true, nor does it changed tthat Democrats are destroying the program. as FDR set it up.)


You have heard it before. Social Security is one of the "entitlements" that is threatening to bankrupt us. But how can that be so? Social Security is supposed to ba a self-Sustaing program, and one of the things that makes my mother mad is the knowledge that a Social Security "trust fund" does ot really exist: the knowledge that Social Seucrity "unds" have been RAIDED to be used as part of general revenue to fund giving people something for nothing. This brings us to the FRAUD of the "payroll tax cut". This is NOT a "tax cut', but a disguiesed welfare pament designed to simply give money to people. What we are doing is REVERSING totally the FDR concept of self-sustaining Social Security by treating Social Secrutiy as just another WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION scheme. The idea is to GIVE people money by saynig that it comes out of SOCIAL SECURITY FUNDING, and then really take the money out of general revenue and taxes--like magic making it no different from cutting a check to people out of GENERAL REVENUE. As sthated, this is no different from that $6000 Democrat/Bush/Obama "stimulus" of 2008--which did not work any better than the Obama "stimulus". This "pyaroll tax cut" really just represents cashpayments to certain people, takin from other people, it represents the final detruction of the FDR concept of Social Security--which in turn, represents the eventual end of Social Security as anything other than another welfar, wealth redistributin program. That is what Obama WANTS, and it is why he, adn leftist Democrats (including the mainstream media) are pushing this "payroll tax cut".


How is Social Seucrity financed--supposedl as a self-sustaing, self-funded program? It is financed through what used to be known as the SOCIAL SECURITY TAX, which is ot supposed to be a general "tax" at all, but is supposed to be the funding mechanism for Social Secuirty, where al workers support their own eventual retirement benefits (even though those benefits will be actually paid by the workers still working when Social Security retirees retire). And the system is supposed to already be INSOLVENT (on a long-term basis), although currently pretty much matching receipts and payments (PROVIDED the recipts are not cut by this Obama welfare payment). Thus, Obama is talking about wanting to "save" Social Secruity at the same time he wanst so CUT THE FUNDING. When you "cut" the Social Security tax, you are cutting the funding. How can that be? How can we afford ti? Answer: we can't afford i, and the only way it "can be' is LIES and POLITICS (including way too many Repubicans and establishment "conservatives").


Now we come to the "lame duck" sesson in late 2010. Obama was looking for more "stimulus", and a way to further expand his wealth redistribution agenda, even as he was going to be forced into a "deal" extending the entire Bush tax cuts (real tax RATE cuts, and not a graud, that had been n effect aobut a decade). Obama, and turncoat Republicans, foisted this "dal" on the American peoiple which INCREASED our debt and deficit more than the ENTRIE AMOUNT that Republicans have claimed to have "cut" the debt and deficit since. What Obama did was get Congress to do this "payroll tax cut" FRAUD, whereby only the emplyee part of "payroll taxes" would be "cut". Makng it even more celear that this was only a "stimuls' GIMMICK, and a monthly welfare payment, was that this was a TEMPORARY "cut" in only a very specific, class warfare, PART of the tax fudning Social Security. But ws there a way to make it even more clear that this was only a wEALTREDISTRIBUTION welfare scheme? Yes, there was.


Remember, a REAL "cut' in Social Security funding would reuire either a CUT in Social Security BENEFITS (eventually), or a later INCREASE in Social Security taxes That is probably what is going to have to be done just to save Social Security for the long haul, even without a cut in funding. Obama and the Democrats had no intention of having people like me be able to point this out, and it is obvious enough that such a measure imposing a future BURDEN on Social Security would never have passed Congress. Solutioni? Come on. You know this one. Since Obama could not, politially or ideologically, do a real Social Secruity funding cut, and then have that cut financed by later Social Security cuts and/or increases in Social Security taxes to make up for the unding shortfall, what FRAUD was availabe (the reason wyou should vote AGAINST every single lRepubican who signed on to that late 2010 deal)? Easy. Make it clear that this had noting to do with Social Security, but was a way to PAY CASH to selected recipients (namely, of course, workers earning wages--what Obama and the Democrats regard as "their" cnstituency). How do you do this? Just require the Social Security "trust fund" (which even my mother now knows is mythical, and just an accounting device) for the loss in funding--taking the reimbursement FROM GENERAL REVENUE (really borrowing it, but to be repaid from general revenue). Magic. Yo no longer have a real "payroll tax cut", which you would have to fund from the Social Security system itself. You have a MONTHLY CAH PAYMENT to workters no dirrent (at all) from simply paying a monthly check to workers every moneth from the Federal Government. And no, that is NOT true with tax RATE reductions allowing people to keeep their own money. It is a gimmick, and a gimmick which completely destroys the original concept of Social Security as a self-sustaining system.


Why idd Obama think he could get away with this "stimulus" increase in the debt and defict--again, a bigger increase (though next year) than any "cut' Repubicans have supposedly made in the deficit? First Obam aheld a gun to the head of woardly Republicans, who did not want to take the political heat for letting the Bush tax cuts "expire". Now it was a false thrat, because Obama would never have let it happen. But Republicans in Congress are both cowards, and Big Government peoiple atr heart. It did not matter that Repubicans had just won an electin based on "fiscla responsibiity" (at least in part). Repubicans were willng t go along with a fiscaly IRRESPONSIBLE gimmick, which DID NOT WORK (as you would have expected). The second reason was that some Repubicans and even some "conservatives'--not me--had proposed a payroll tax " holiday" as a "Repubican" ALTERNATIVE to the Obama PORK spenindg in the Obama "stimulus" bill This was attractive to Repubicans because it would supposedly have given BUSINESSES a break by cutting their cost for emplyees. Stil TERRRIBLE policy--still a welfare GIMMICK, but the type of elfare that some Repubicans like. I thik Rush Limbuagh fell for this fraud, which is yet more evidence why this blog is right more often than Limbaugh. Obam, however, got away with even depriving Repubicans of the attraction of this "idea", since Obama aand the Democrats limited the "tax cut" to the WORKER (not the employer). Watch for the further FRAUD of some kind of "compromise" where the business part of teh payroll tax is also "cut'. Now, as a "stimulus", the Repubican "payroll tax holiday" idea was BETTER than the Democrat/Obama Big Government SPENDING bill. However, it was still a TERRIBLE idea, and a fraud (as explained above), wich was much worse than doing nothing. The only "tax cut" worth considering was a GNERAL cut in tax RATES for individuals and businesses (includng closing of tax loopholes and expenditures that complicate the Tax Code--as this payroll tax gimmick compicates the tax code and fails to help the economy),


Now what Obama is doing is trying to EXTEND the FRAUD of the "payroll tax cut". Remember, again, that this is the FUNDING for Social Security that Obama wants to CUT. And it will AGAIN add MORE to the debt and defict than Repubicans will have "cut", all of the way through 2012 and beyond (the references to larger "cuts" being for the OUT YEARS, beyond this next fiscal year, when we have no idea whether any such "cuts" will be actually made). Again, we will have to BORROW the money to make these "yroll tax cut" welfare payments. We now have a "new" Repubican House. Surely this cannot pass? Well, it should not pass. But this blog has been tellng you for monthst that the establishment has been telling LIE after LIE to get it passsed--including the lie that everyone agrees with it except malcontents like me).


That is how we come to today, and the ROPAGANDA headline of the AP (as featured on AT&T/Yahoo--boycott AT&T and Yahoo) as follows: "GOP may okay tax increase that Obama wants to block".


Can DISHONEST PROPAGANDA get any worse than this? The despicable AP contains the most dishonest lhypocrities to ever walk the Earth, on two legs or four (except for the rest oft he mainstream media--just as bad, except that the AP is used for COVER for partisan propaganda as a supposed "news wire service) Yep. The headline is about the "payroll tax cut"l--an outright political ad for Obama and an outright LIE.


See part II of this article, which will be next.


P.S No proofreading or spel checking (bad eyesight).