Social Security Attack: Democrats and Wall Street Fascists Double Down on Destroying Social Secureity

Why is Social Security not a welfare program? I am srious. Why did FDR not set up Social Security as a straight welfare program for old people (like me--although I am "only" 64, but an effectively blind 64)?


My honors social studies class professor answered that question in 2968, at New Mexico State Universtiy, when I accurately pointed out that Social Security is a BAD welfare program and a BAD retirement/insurance program. By the way, you might wonder what I was doing in an honors social studies class (not to mention an honors economics class), when I had a major in physics and a minor in mathematics. You might be less puzzled if you knnow that I went out of the United States Army (where I went directly after college) into the University of Texas School of Law (with an LSAT of 785 out of 800, after I had been out of college for 3 years, withouit a prepatory class). I digress. I am sort of proud, though, of ding that well without a preparatory class--hardly possible with the "logic games" on the modern LSAT.


What my professor correctly said was that Social Security was set up for EVERYONE (not just the poor) to beoth give EVERYONE a stake in the program, and to send the message that the program involved the DIGNITY of the elderly. FDR's position--the kind of position that made him my 89 yer old mother's hero, even though she cannot stand Obama--was that the elderly had EARNED a minimum amount of dignity in their old age--especailly if the Social Security program was a self-sustaining, self-financed program. Now the fraud here was that Social Security never was a true retirement program, where people paid into their own retirement. Instead--the falw that may yet turn out to be fatal--it was a program where the YOUNG paid for the benefits for the OLD, with the PROMISE (not legally enforceable) that they, in turn, would get the same sort of benefit when they (the young) became old. The key point here, however, is that FDR (and the whole nation) set up Social Security as a self-sustaining, self-financing program that EVERYONE had a stake in (not only with regard to benefits, but with regard to paying into the program).


What was the financing? You know this one. It was, and is, the PAYROLL TAX (what used to be called the Social Security Tax). That is supposed to be the ONLY financing for Social Security. That was how the system was set up. That is why the payroll tax is separate, and Socail Secruity is not treated as a wealth redistribution scheme to be paid out of general tax revenue (a graduated income tax).


Thus, the payroll tax is not just another tax. It is a retirement contribution, even if lyou are contributing to the retirement of people other than yourself. In a way, it is like a gasoline tax dedicated to highways, bridges, and transportation. If you change this system by financing Social Secruity with general tax revenue, you are ATTAKING the very concept by which FDR set up the Social Security system. Notice that the DIGNITY is gone. The "stake" of everyone is GONE. What you have left is merely another Big Government welfare program for the elderly. This is exactly lwhat Obama and the Democrats--not to mention the economic fascists on Wall Street--intend to do. They intend to DESTROY Social Security. Oh yes, too many Republicans, and even "conservatives", buy into this attack on Social Security (hence the reference to "economic fascists"--having nothing to do with Hitler but a lot to do with the idea that your life shold be CNTROLLED by a "partnership" of Big Government and Big Business).


Doubt me? Never do that. What have we had for the past year, because of the "lame duck" "deal" wich INCREASED the deficit much moe than the Repubicans have even nominally cut it (throughg the next fiscal year and beyond).? Right. Obama got the Republicans (not much arm twsting involved for thsese Big Defict/Big Government guys and gals) to agree to a "temporary", one year, "payroll tax cut". As this blog has spent a lot of time showing yhou, there is no such thing as a "payroll tax cut" reducing the amount available to pay Social Secruity benefits. Remember, the "payroll tax" is the ONLY financing for Social Security. Except now it isn't, as we have already gone a long way toward DESTROYING Social Security. That is because the "cut" does NOT come out of Social Security. It comes out of general tax revenue. You should be able to see that this makes the "payroll tax cut" a WELFARE PAYMENT. It is a long step toward making Social Security a WELFARE SYSTME, which is exactly what many people want to do. (including Obama and the Democrats). You should also be able to see that this is not only CASS WARFARE but AGE WARGARE. The young and productive have to pay for the payments to the old and unproductive--NOT as having a stake in the entire system but as part of a welath redistribution scheme. It gets wore--much worse.


What is Obama gong to propose in his "jobs" program? You guessed it. He is gong to propose that this "payroll tax cut" be EXTENDED at least another year--this "temporary" "stimulus" that FAILED to do anything over this year but increase the deficit MORE than any supposed "cut" that our politicians have agreed to (not counting "cuts" ten years or so from now, which really don't count). This welfare gimick "stimulus", that DID NOT WORK, wil increase the deficit another 1000 billion dollars or so (Not too sure of this number, but it is a LARGE number, as lou can tell by merely multiplying $1000 by 100 million). Yes, the "tax cut"/welfare lpayment is 2% of only the worker's part of the tax, as to every worker in America. Are there 100 million workers in America? I don't know. Thee really should be., if Obama has not cost them all their jobs with gimmicks like this (alrealdy failed gimmicks). It gets still worse. Remember, this is NOT a "payroll tax cut", if you realize that the "payroll tax" is the ONLY financing for Soecial Security (unless we are going to destroy the concept of Social Security). Social Security already cannot meet its obligations. We have to BORROW the money, and then pay it back form general tax revenue. Thus, we are notw financing Scoial Security with general tax revenue. Meanwhile CNBC, and most of Wall Street, is saying that tihs "payroll tax cut" is a foregone conclusion"--made that wy by Ben Bernanke's speech on Friday (Ben Bernannke being the Fed Cahriman, or otherwise known as The Worst Failure in the History of World Finance). Yep. I could never make this up. The economiic fascists on Wall Street believe that Bernanke signalled that he is supporting THEM (as, in fact, he has, rather than supporting the people of the United States). See how this "economic partnership" is supposed to work: Wall Strreet tells Washington what to do, and the Republican establishment is supposed to go along because they ARE Wall Street.



"Wait, Skip, you said it was WORSE than this. How could it possibly be worse?" Ah. What is the goal here? It is obvious that this "gemporary" "gimmick" accomlishes nothing except increase the deficit, and give people money--like the Bush/Democrat "stimulus" of 2008). Oh, and that cash welfare payment that people will get each month, as they got thins year? That will COST people much mor than the money they get. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. But the way this is WORSE than that is that everyone can see that this "temporary" "stimuulus" will NOT help employment or the economy. It has not helped. Obama likes to claim that the Obama "stimulus" contained all kins of "tax cuts". Not so It containted the same kind of WELFARE PAYMENTS (disguised as "tax cuts") which we are talking aobut here. Short-term, "temporary" "tax cutrs" are not true "tax cuts" at all. They are just GIMMICKS to "stimululate the economy. Republicans who talk about real, permanent tax cuts as if they are just another "gimmick" to stimuluate the economy should probably just be taken out and shot. They are a useless drag on humanity. However, it IS possible to have a PERMANENT "cut, or repeal, of the payroll tax. That would be a "real" tax cut--if a fraudulent one.


How do I know that this is what Obama. leftist democrats and Wall Street fascists are planning? Well, I LISTEN to leftists, and that is what I hear. Further, the ONLY avenue for CLASS WARFARE leftist is to cut the payroll tax, until there is no payroll tax. Why is that? It is because 50% of the country PAYS NO INCOME TAX. The "rich" already ay much more than their "fair share" of the income taxes. How can leftist Democrats avoid the (correct) label thqat their primary goal in life is to RAISE TAXES? Easy. CUT the payroll tax, and RAISE other taxes. I feel like crying. You should be able to see where this is going. Already, we are heading towards a society were a smaller and smaller lpercentage of the people are looked at for ALL of our revenue. If we add Social Security, and all of Medicare (50% is already there) to this, we are facing DISASTER squarely in the face. Not least of the problems is that we will DESTROY the very rationale for Social Secuirty, as it has existed since FDR. You just can't finance the government from a constantly diminishing number of people, such that the vase majority of people have no stake at all in the country (except in terms of "gimme"). I will be as bluint as I can (Ben Bernanke, FAILURE that our are; This means YOU and all of CNBC): We will not survive this kind of concept of the financing of government--especailly when the government is merely an agent for WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION. Further, Social Secruity will ot survive it, which is why FDR set it up this way in the first place (so it would survive).


Ah. The final proof. Yep. I saw a small part of Hannity on the unfair and unbalanced network. Hannity had on the susual suspects from the %$%)^% Business channel, and the man (Stuart Varney, or however he speels it) was saying that this "payroll tax cut" is merely a gimmick that has already proven not to help. The womn, however, as a true economic fascist, said that such criticism was only valid if this is not a PERMANENT tax cut. I feel like crying. See above.


Yes, a PERMANENT "payroll tax cut" would be a "real" tax cut, rather than a direct welfare payment and short-term "stimulus". Problem (making this the WORST proposed tax "cut" in the history of man): The "payroll tax" is NOT jsut a means of raising revenue. It is the ONLY financing for Social Secruity. Therefore,, a payroll tax "cut" is NOT a "real" tax cut. It is a plan to DESTORY Social Security, and a WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION SCHEME. Social Security itself needs funding HELP (being already broke, on any kind of long-term basis). Thus, people who proose this are proposing to BORROW the money to pay Social Security, and then to pay that money back out of GNERAL REVENUE. Social Security, as we know it, disappears. If we "fund" it with general revenue, then Social Security is merely another Big Government welfare program. Yes, I am perfectly aware that Social Security is a "regressive" tax. So is the gasoline tax. But we absolutely have to retain the concept that people have to PAY for what they expect to receive, at least in part. Remember, 50% of the country pays NO income tax. Thus, the other reason that at permanent "payroll tax cut" is not a "real" tax cut is that money intended to PAY for a program--speciafically to make the program a responsibility of everyone--is merely GIVEN to people who will payNOTHING toward their retirement. Sure, that alrady occurs (sojme immigrants come to mind), but Obama, Democrats and Wll Street fascists want this to DEFINE the way we finance Social Security.


I have told you that I WALK AWAY from the Repubican Party--FOREVER--if this payroll tax "cut" passes. I can about say the same thing about the entire Obama "jobs" program. I thought I was being tolerant not to take this step at the time of the FRAUDULENT "lame duck" "stimulus". Or at the time of the FRAUDULNT budget deal for the current fiascal year. Or at the time of the FRAUDULENT "deal" on the deb ceiling, where a simple extension would have actually been better. You should be albe to see why I am so pessimistic. I now think that the chances are 90%, and rising, that I will walk away from the Repubican Party forever. That will have consequences. First, it will mean that I probably will NOT support either Romney or Perry against Obama. I will support Bachmann, but NOT because she is a Republican. No, that is not already my positiion. I have tried to give the Republican Party every chance, but they have used them all up. What can they do? Basically, do what I don't expect them to do: Avoid being COWARDS. Pas NONE of Obama's "jobs program"--fraudulent and deficit busting as it is--and REJECT a fraudulent "deal" by the "gang of 12" (the only kind of deal at all likely, as any "deal" will involve spending "cuts' in the FAR TUTURE, while any tax increases will occur pretty quickly),


P.S No proofreading or spell checking (that eyesight). That is badas to a complex article like this, where I am trying to explain what everyone else is tryong to CONFUSE. I hope the redundancy is enough to make the above intelligibnle, despite the typos and inability to proofread garbled sentences. Your corss to bear is putting up with this. Mine is perhaps dong this for nothing. Well, I AM doing this for nothing, but I do have some hope of spreading some light out there, if only among a few people. If you can't even read what I write, then there is no way I can do any good. Here's hoping, pessimist that I am. Oh, you are not reallly any worse off than I am. Not only can I not read my own blog entreis (in any reasonable amount of time), but I caN't read even the AP articles upon which I comment. How do I do that? I do what you probably have to sometimes do with this blog. I have to make an educated GUESS as to what the article says, based on what amounts to picking out the headline, and maybe one word in two or three. Trust me. I am not being unfair to the despicable AP. Long before my eyesight got this bad, I was writing the sAME type of articles on the AP stories. That is how I can be so sure about my 'guess" on what the AP says. For 7 years and more, I have written more analysis of AP stories than any other single person alive. I don't intend to stop, even if I have trouble reading the stuff now (which would otherwise be like being in Heaven--if I liked the concept of Heaven--as no one should have to read an AP story. This P.S. should tell you that it is getting late, and I am getting tired. Feel free to ignore it. But this "payroll tax cut" issue is important to me, which I am trying to convey with this P.S. For me, it shows--more than any other single "issue"--what is WRONG with the way "we" (meaning the mainstream media, leftists, the establishment, and the like) are approaching "issues' today. This "issue" alone shows why I am such a pessimist, and may be the reason I leave the Republican Party behind forever. That is why I really want to get this across, typos, garbled sentences and all. Yep. I have again been confirmed n my view of the unfair and unbalanced network, but you knew I would be.