Category: Bernie Sanders

Feel the Bern, V5.0

Greetings comrades! It’s been a while since I’ve made a post and even longer since I’ve made one of any real substance. This post will just be some pictorial propaganda and for the next week or so it’ll be a while before I get back to making posts regularly. As always, don’t forget to vote for the most Stalinist candidate possible, support the Party, give up all your income, and be sure to spread this post amongst your progressive fiends. Enjoy!

12472591_742750990381_124616041720295826_n
It had to happen sometime…
12957530_1000227223358733_6115129241127700449_o
You might not realize it, but government control of your life is what you want. What kind of thoughtkriminal wants freedom anyway?

12936676_10154849699034465_5204647857932318530_n     13000223_10154087077348764_7853341330166882808_n    13051632_846332482138818_1858003171144746976_n

Bernie’s true enemies: mathematics and geography!

13076738_1423040164388233_657704300378349837_n 13102680_848783665227033_3131188077533868480_n   12991016_843358155769584_2903749898381806060_n

13139201_152247938510572_1094776741115234479_n 13330888_10209672892969035_86823976905427645_n

We’ve been through this before…

CAlfano   13335850_863996603705739_6103951822228676911_n

13332955_173965063005526_4658791091351029730_n

giphy

Don’t forget to show you support for Bernie and his Sandroids by visiting Economic Illiterates for Bernie Sanders 2016!

Quit, Bernie Quit!

resultsApril26

Voting is done in Northeastern primaries and after tallying a number of votes Shillary Hillary has won four out five states with Bernie winning in Rhode Island by two delegates. I know that this might be hard for the Sandroids to believe, but Bernie had little chance of winning to begin with and is most certainly finished by now. But according to the aging socialists he’s going to take it out to the convention. Bernie has also blamed poor people for his failure. I’m not using hyperbole on that as Bernie actually told NBC’s Meet the Press “poor people don’t vote.” and “I mean, that’s just a fact,” Sanders continued. “That’s a sad reality of American society.

Bernie’s supporters need some serious help:

I'm sure that Bernie will find a path towards victory...
I’m sure that Bernie will find a path towards victory…

On the Republican side Trump won in every state and received almost every single delegate. Trump also has done what many pundits have said can’t be done and won a majority of the vote instead of just a plurality as he was doing before. As always, opinion polls can only tell you so much.

republicanApril 26

I was hoping for some Ted Cruz victories yet I would still gladly support Trump over the lying old hag and the aging communist. What an awesome election it’s been and I’m sure that it can only get better as it drags on.

Irina Alexandrovevskivich endorses Bernie!

Ms. Alexandrovevskivich endorses Bernie and you can too. Let’s listen to what this fine Party member has to say:

For reference, here’s where the deodorant comment comes from. Funny enough, one of the Sandroids commented that Bernie’s words have no meaning:

Rick_Russell

 

Discussions with Bernie Sanders supporters…

Today’s post is dedicated to my complex, intelligent, factually-based, and well-thought out debates with the Sandroid Bernout Army. I’m just kidding folks, there wasn’t a whole lot of critical thinking going on in the mind of the Sandroids. Only one of the people I asked questions of was somewhat reasonable. You’ve heard me talk of the folks over at Economic Illiterates for Bernie Sanders 2016 before and this is where most of the discussions took place at.

To start this off here’s a CNN that some Sandroids decided to spam the aforementioned page with.

CNN-Under Sanders, income and jobs would soar, economist says

In the CNN article a single economist by the name of Gerald Freidman claims that under Bernie’s plan the U.S. economy would:

Friedman, who believes in democratic socialism like the candidate, found that if Sanders became president — and was able to push his plan through Congress — median household income would be $82,200 by 2026, far higher than the $59,300 projected by the Congressional Budget Office.

In addition, poverty would plummet to a record low 6%, as opposed to the CBO’s forecast of 13.9%. The U.S. economy would grow by 5.3% per year, instead of 2.1%, and the nation’s $1.3 trillion deficit would turn into a large surplus by Sanders’ second term.

I’m fairly certain that most of the Bernie supporters didn’t get past this part (or the title for that matter) since right after that portion of the article was the following:

Other economists, however, feel that Friedman’s analysis is overly optimistic, saying it would be difficult to achieve that level of economic prosperity. Last week, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said Sanders’ plan to pay for health care would fall short by at least $3 trillion.”

I wonder where the $14.5 trillion is going to come from?

Sanders’ plan to pour $14.5 trillion into the economy — including spending on infrastructure and youth employment, increasing Social Security benefits, making college free and expanding health care and family leave — would juice GDP and productivity. (Friedman reduces the cost of Medicare-for-all to $10.7 trillion because he estimates the government would save $3.1 trillion by eliminating tax breaks for health insurance premiums.)

That’s right, tax increases on the wretched and vile “1%”, a 2.2% income tax on anyone making over $28,000 a year, a 6.2% payroll tax levied on the employer side, a tax on numerous financial transactions (purchase/sale of bonds, stocks, among many other things), and big increases on capital gains among numerous other fees. Brilliant, whatever could go wrong with this great plan?   (Hat-tip to We Are Capitalists)

12631405_493412637496950_2728163176610652916_n

Continuing on though:

‘Like the New Deal of the 1930s, Senator Sanders’ program is designed to do more than merely increase economic activity,’ Friedman writes. It will ‘promote a more just prosperity, broadly-based with a narrowing of economy inequality.’

FDR’s Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau Jr. admitted that New Deal policies were a complete and utter failure that didn’t restore employment, restore prosperity, or even end the Great Depression.

Many presidential hopefuls say their economic programs would boost growth. Donald Trump and Jeb Bush justify their big tax cuts by saying GDP would grow at a 4% rate. But their plans have been panned by experts as overly optimistic.

We won’t get 4% growth per year in the economy, but Bernie and his Bernouts will find a way to make the U.S. economy consistently grow at 5.3% every year.

Friedman, however, argues that Sanders’ plan would be more stimulative because it is pouring money into the economy, as opposed to cutting taxes. Several of Sanders’ proposals — such as spending $1 trillion on infrastructure — will happen in the first few years of his administration.

The thinking goes: This enhanced government spending would increase demand on businesses, who would then hire more workers to meet their needs. The increase in employment will prompt people to buy more, leading other businesses to hire.

‘If there is more spending, people will have more to do,’ Friedman said, noting that the share of the population with jobs could be restored to its 1999 level of more than 64%, up from its current 59.6% rate.

So if we take more money from citizens just to give it back to them later the economy will grow? Brilliant…

10610743_10207814491744006_389463997724232360_n       11261496_744850538953680_400639547207836214_n

At the end of the article we see the following:

Still, some experts question whether the effects would be that large.

Stimulating demand can boost a weak economy during a recession, but ‘it’s harder to accept as a long-run growth strategy,’ said William Gale, the former director of Brookings’ Economic Studies Program.

Also, it would be very difficult to achieve and maintain an economic growth rate of 5.3% per year after inflation. That target hasn’t been hit consistently since the 1960s, when technology was providing big advancements, the workforce was younger and there was increased demand for American products worldwide as other countries fully recovered from World War II.

‘The 5.3% number is a fantasy,’ said Jim Kessler, senior vice president at Third Way, a centrist think tank.

I feel like I’ve said something similar to this before about economic conditions in the 1950s and progressive ideas about the tax code.

Joe

Now that I’ve established what the Bernie trolls are citing as evidence of their ideas being correct, let’s look at how they respond to my arguments.

Here was the standard response I gave (i.e. copied and pasted) since the Sandroids kept citing the same article without reading it.

Sandroid Response

Some people never really responded…

JessicaPeck      MikeJoseph      JessicaPeck

Like I said at the beginning, there was one individual who was reasonable and not full of hate.

KaylaBubridge

Then there were the people who would disagree with what I had to say but offered no evidence of their own whilst calling me a liar. The logic that the Sandroids are using is simply amazing…

ChrisSloanes1    ChrisSloanes2    ChrisSloanes3

Concerning a discussion not related to the CNN article Mr. Joe Giansante provided some good entertainment. This postal worker appears to be going postal on me.

 

JoeGiasante    JoeGiasante1   JoeGiansante3

joetard

Mr. Tanous had some interesting logic as well; the “1%” are keeping Africa to perform sweatshop labor yet also stopping all economic development. I’m not certain how that works, especially when countries like South Africa are ruled by the socialists in the African National Congress and communist dictators rule Zimbabwe. What’s up with progressives and thinking that their opponents base everything off of Fox News?

TaylorJamesTanous    TaylorJamesTanous1    TaylorJamesTanous2

Then there was a woman by the name of Sally Sallernio who makes some wondrous claims yet is also unable to back them up.

jordan_lubbers jordan_lubbers_1 jordan_lubbers_2

She actually argued that facts don’t matter…

Sally_salltard_3 Sally_salltard_4

I know what Comrade Sally needs in her life, a lifetime subscription to Poor Me! magazine.

Poor_Me_Magazine_Issue_1

That’s all for now about my conversations with the Sandroid Bernout Army. As always, don’t be scared to share this information with your fiends, I mean friends.

 

 

 

Feeling the Bern, part four

Good evening comrades, it’s time for another round of glorious pictorial propaganda to celebrate Citizen Senator Sanders. The fun never stops at Economic Illiterates for Bernie Sanders 2016. After Bernie is inaugurated next year he will usher in a new era of utopia not seen since the Great Depression. Total government spending will go up from approximately 35% of GDP to double or raise to even greater heights and fully snuff out the private sector. The conversion of the United States of America to the United Socialist States of America will be complete and the last vestiges of capitalism will be purged from society. We will truly live in a paradise. Forward!

12647349_10153868462424787_5257769111101864588_n
This was produced by a genuine Bernie supporter! Isn’t it awesome?!

1937137_929600127129776_4986223959656059482_n  12615141_10156560450300374_5008849472153375364_o  12642523_10153233500536697_3320870184307534099_n  12642619_832889621115_7294484435066046573_n 12645135_10100444061444500_3388434319001976585_n  12670467_801234513315282_9049662932458246594_n 12670861_10153834128726425_4139315390278930385_n  12688281_10154126213763974_3603856737662163217_n 12705196_10154126214873974_5295509747422146737_n    Sanders-Cult  12670455_10207022002221521_1505578538064992712_n  12650794_10154126215273974_6619917434256219766_n  12651178_803914566380610_6190667262808849389_n 

For anyone who’s curious to the background behind the following photo: Washington Free Beacon-Bernie Sanders Condemns Existence of 23 Different Brands of Deodorant While Children Go Hungry

12540738_797499827022084_5414165091690548644_n

12670104_802806636491403_6227201768770297003_n12654314_1106730059347261_47000619306462022_n  12661983_10156720683495314_8491219007494682140_n

Are you feeling the Bern? Why not start with the U.S. Constitution?!

bernthecontstitution

As always, don’t be scared to share all of the media material that I have amassed here.

Are you feeling the Bern?

Feel the Bern, part Duo!

Feel the Bern, part three

Some losers are finally quitting

democratiowa republicaniowa

Is everyone else having a good night? Does anyone else wonder why Iowa is such a big deal? Why does it get so much attention during the Primary season? Those are questions for another day I suppose. At least that loser Martin O’Malley is finally dropping out of the Democratic nomination process. I suppose that he had enough of getting less than 1% in polls? Why did he run again?

Speaking of losers the carpenter that has never actually made anything and Shillary pretty much split the Democratic vote and will get the same number of delegates no matter who actually wins in the end. Who will win: the aging socialist or a former Secretary of State who can’t figure out e-mail and classified material?

Looking at Republican losers, Jeb Bush got about 3% and Huckabee got about 1% of the vote. At least Huckabee has the sense to drop out, though I don’t know why he tried in the first place. Jeb, do the world a favor and quit please. Perhaps Rand Paul will do a little better in other states?

Yahoo! News: Cruz declared winner in Iowa caucuses

The Washington Times-Hillary claims victory, Bernie Sanders lauds ‘virtual tie’ in Iowa

NBC News-Iowa Caucus 2016: Election Results

The winner for the Republican Party.
The winner for the Republican Party.
An honorable man, though probably not the right one to be President.
An honorable man, though probably not the right one to be President.
He didn't win, but he's got 49 (or 56 for some people) states to go. I think that I'd like to vote for someone else though...
He didn’t win, but he’s got 49 (or 56 for some people) states to go. I think that I’d like to vote for someone else though…
Someone did better than expected.
Someone did better than expected.
From "change we can believe in" to a "future we can believe in." Amazing...
From “change we can believe in” to a “future we can believe in.” Amazing…
The face of a complete loser!
The face of a complete loser!
You're not welcome!
You’re not welcome!
Please, just stop...
Please, just stop…

 

 

Economic conditions of the 1950’s

A constant refrain that I hear from progressives is that the United States had 90% taxes during the 1950s and the country was still prosperous. Progressives seem to believe that it is a golden era that we need to emulate in all economic facets…

Joe Parks


I wonder how many of these proud Party members have actually taken the time to think about what caused the United States to be the world’s pre-eminent economic power during the 1950s. Is it possible that 90% income tax rates on the wretched and vile “1%” led to economic prosperity (or at least didn’t hinder it) or is there something more to the story? Let’s start by taking a look at what taxes were paid to the Federal Government in the post WWII years (I bet WWII took a while to pay off also). A publication produced by UC Berkeley in 2007 entitled “How Progressive is the U.S. Federal Tax System? A Historical and International Perspective”provides much insight into what the “1%” actually paid in taxes in the 1950s. Let’s take a look:

The 1960 federal tax system was very progressive even within the top percentile, with an average tax rate of around 35 percent in the bottom half of the top percentile to over 70 percent in the top 0.01 percent. This finding illustrates the theme that it is important to decompose the top of the income distribution into very small groups to capture the progressivity of a tax system. Although very top groups contain few taxpayers, they account for a substantial share of income earned, and an even larger share of taxes paid.

Interestingly, the larger progressivity in 1960 is not mainly due to the individual income tax. The average individual income tax rate in 1960 reached an average rate of 31 percent at the very top, only slightly above the 25 percent average rate at the very top in 2004. Within the 1960 version of the individual income tax, lower rates on realized capital gains, as well as deductions for interest payments and charitable contributions, reduced dramatically what otherwise looked like an extremely progressive tax schedule, with a top marginal tax rate on individual income of 91 percent.

So the actualized income tax rate for the rich was 31%, not really much different from where it stands today. That is a most interesting point to come to terms with. Such results also show that Sandroids don’t actually know what they’re talking about when they claim that the United States had a 91% income tax rate.

The greater progressivity of federal taxes in 1960, in contrast to 2004, stems from the corporate income tax and the estate tax. The corporate tax collected about 6.5 percent of total personal income in 1960 and only around 2.5 percent of total income today. Because capital income is very concentrated, it generated a substantial burden on top income groups. The estate tax has also decreased from 0.8 percent of total personal income in 1960 to about 0.35 percent of total income today. As a result, the burden of the estate tax relative to income has declined very sharply since 1960 in the top income groups.

The true source of where the “1%” paid out comes to light. If you look at the current U.S. corporate tax rate, you will see that it is extremely high at 39.1%. Many progressives will also claim that many major corporations don’t pay any taxes. I really would like someone to tell me which of those evil corporations pays zero taxes. As for estate taxes, is there really a need to tax a citizen after he is dead?

Second, the composition of top incomes has changed substantially. Figure 2 shows the breakdown into wage income, business income, capital income (including imputed corporate taxes), and realized capital gains. In the 1960s, top incomes were primarily composed of capital income: mostly dividends and capital gains. The surge in top incomes since the 1970s has been driven in large part by a steep increase in the labor income component, due in large part to the explosion of executive compensation. As a result, labor income now represents a substantial fraction of income at the top. This change in composition is important to keep in mind, because the corporate and estate taxes that had such a strong effect on creating progressivity in the 1960s would have relatively little effect on labor income.

The income of wealthy Americans has gone up which raises inequality. Progressives certainly can’t have inequality or a tax code that doesn’t redistribute the wealth. . Progressives will commonly harp on the shrinking middle class; they simply can’t shut up about it. The New York Times will even write a story on this very subject  when the data that they use as a source shows that most of the reason the middle class has shrunk is due rising incomes overall. The New York Times’ blatant misrepresentation of the data is simply astounding. I suppose that progressives would seek to bring the wealth of the average American down though as we must all be equal. Just one more reason that “inequality” is a stupid issue. Just because someone else’s income is rising does not mean you are worse off. Anyone who is curious where such numbers originate from can look to the U.S. Census Bureau website.

shrinking. shrinking_1

distribution

11952768_1079414705419531_5335396545754349811_o
A true Progressive goal!

 

One of the other things that Progressives seem to forget about when discussing post WWII economic conditions is WWII. The United Kingdom had here cities heavily bombed and ended the war nearly bankrupt, France was occupied for four years and also suffered heavily; Germany lost millions, lost Prussia, and was rent in two; the Soviet Union lost 27 million people and had many of its cities decimated, the Chinese lost over 20 million fighting the Japanese and shortly thereafter underwent a Communist revolution; Japan lost millions, had its cities destroyed, and two nukes dropped on it. The only major power left without any massive loss of live or widespread destruction wrought in its homeland was the United States. The destruction of industrialized countries allowed the United States to produce the majority of the world’s economic output for a time without contest. When progressives say that the 1950s were a good time for the U.S. economy they have no understanding as to why.
Borrowed from Wikipedia
Borrowed from Wikipedia

 

Keynesians think that war stimulates the economy right? Nothing said economic growth like the Nanking massacre!
Keynesians think that war stimulates the economy right? Nothing said economic growth like the Nanking massacre!

Progressive thoughts on Socialist Insecurity

12246793_1067143936640804_6305886362138945129_n
Would progressives actually allow this?

Posted above is what a Facebook page called Americans against the Republican Party posted up about Socialist Insecurity. Based upon this meme you would almost think that progressives and fellow socialists actually believe in free choice instead of forcing fellow citizens to give up the majority of their income. Based upon how often the Democratic Party Presidential candidates talk about the 1%, taxing the rich, demanding that the Federal Government provide more, and their desire to turn the United States into a copy of Denmark I’m not certain I wouldn’t believe that though. Let’s take a look at some of the comments from the aforementioned Facebook page:

greed greed!

The comments are very revealing into what many progressives believe. The socialists are admitting that: they’re socialists, discuss why socialism is a good thing, think that the government will fix their problems, Rethuglicans are opposing the glorious coming of Next Tuesday™, and that progressives care about proles citizens. Don’t forget to talk about fighting for change some more either. Progressives care about you so much that they’ll take your income, give it to someone else, and then promise to pay you back with interest decades later. Obviously citizens can’t be trusted to save up their own money.

Are you ready for more Hope and Change comrade?
Are you ready for more Hope and Change comrade?

Plenty of people think that the Federal Government needs to provide even more for citizens and make things “free.” Going back to the Bernie Sanders’ article I linked to earlier:

Health care in Denmark is universal, free of charge and high in quality. Everybody is covered as a right of citizenship. The Danish health care system is popular, with patient satisfaction much higher than in the United States. In Denmark, every citizen can choose a doctor in their area. Prescription drugs are inexpensive.

It’s interesting that socialists will claim that anything a government provides is free. Danish taxes include: income taxes (not including municipal, and others) starting off at about 38% for anyone making over 40,000 DKK (∼$7000 US), a national Value Added Tax of 25%,a 180% sales taxes on automobiles (some boast about it since citizens’ are forced into obedience concerning climate change), $2,000 fees just to get a Driver License, gas taxes over $4/G, and numerous other fees. Such taxes hardly qualify anything provided in Denmark as being “free” and of no expense to taxpayers. But hey, taking 2/3 or more of a citizens income and and controlling them is a socialist’s wet dream right? Even when the extreme taxes are pointed out to progressives, they’ll still call government programs free. No matter what you use to prove that extensive social programs require extensive taxes, they’ll simply reply back that the rich aren’t paying their fair share…

illiteracyilliteracy1 illiteracy2 illiteracy3

Back to the initial thrust of this post though; no matter what progressives say about Social Security, not everyone pays into it. For quite a large number of people, including Ida May Fuller (more on her later), almost nothing was contributed to the “Trust Fund.” Let’s look at what Michael Lind had to write in the New York Times article “Social Security as a Ponzi? It’s a Bad Metaphor“:

Some critics of Social Security seem to equate it with a Ponzi scheme because the growth of payouts depends on growth of the number of future taxpayers, in the case of Social Security, or future investors, in the case of classic Ponzi schemes. By this definition, Social Security is a Ponzi scheme — and so are the private investment accounts that many conservatives propose as an alternative to Social Security. Whether the intermediary is the government or private money managers, in both cases the income of retirees will depend on money generated by the economic activity of succeeding generations in the work force. The main difference is that private investments are riskier than promises by the federal government of the United States to pay benefits to seniors who have paid payroll taxes all their lives.

The author just admitted that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. I do not advocate for forcing people to put money in private investment accounts either. I simply believe that citizens shouldn’t forcefully have 6.2% (up to $118,500) of their paycheck deducted, nor should employers have to give up their 6.2% either. I feel as if I can manage money better than central government managers, but progressives can’t let people have freedom. They have to take your money for your own good.

Social Security was partly pre-funded in 1983. This raised payroll taxes above immediate program costs in order to create a trust fund that lent money to the U.S. government, which must repay the trust fund as any other creditor would. Social Security will not become a pure pay-as-you-go system until 2036, according to the latest government estimates. Even then, there will be only a modest shortfall in benefits, which can be eliminated in advance by higher payroll taxes, permanent infusions of general revenue or other non-payroll taxes, or benefit reductions — or a combination of these reforms. A Social Security system funded purely by current taxes would no more be a Ponzi scheme than the U.S. military or the public school system.

So the Federal Government can take money out of it and promise to pay it back? Sounds promising. The estimates he posted up are also not correct. I can’t verify what he actually linked to, it is now dead. Taking a look at a report by the Office of the Inspector General for the Social Security Administration’s 2014 Disability Insurance Trust Fund Informational Report reveals the following:

The 2014 Trustees’ Annual Report has projected that the DI Trust Fund reserves will be depleted in the fourth quarter of 2016, and the combined OASI and DI Trust Funds would be depleted in 2033. Although the DI Trust Fund is estimated to be depleted in the fourth quarter of 2016, the Trustees have recommended that lawmakers address the projected Trust Fund shortfalls for the combined OASI and DI Trust Funds in a timely way to phase in necessary changes and give workers and beneficiaries time to adjust to them. Implementing changes soon would allow more generations to share in the needed revenue increases or reductions in scheduled benefits.

For anyone who’s curious, DI refers to the Disability Insurance Trust Fund and OASI is Old-Age and Survivors Insurance program. The DI “Trust Fund” runs out of money in a year and once the program payments are combined money will run low in 2033. Isn’t interesting how these estimates keep growing shorter? Moving down to page 3, the document illustrates perfectly how Social Security is a pyramid scheme:

Overall, OASDI costs will rise over the next 20 years as baby boomers retire and lower-birth-rate generations born after 1965 replace the population at working ages. The lower birth rates after 1965 caused a permanent shift in the population’s age distribution, with fewer workers supporting more retirees. Additionally, the baby boomer generation has moved from less disability-prone ages (25 to 44) to more disability prone ages (45 to 64). See Figure C–1 in Appendix C. This, along with other issues, has resulted in the flat projected number of workers per DI beneficiary for the future.

The last paragraph in Mr. Lind’s piece must have been a joke, right?

To paraphrase the late David Crockett — as a U.S. congressman from Tennessee, before he died in 1836 at the Alamo during the fight for the independence of Texas — Governor Perry’s claim that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme don’t make good sense. It don’t even make good nonsense.

Something doesn’t make sense anyway. The fine fact-checkers over at PolitiFact Florida have declared any claims that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme to be false. Let’s take a look at why:

The term originates with Charles Ponzi, a Boston swindler who conned investors out of millions in 1920 by promising returns of up to 100 percent in 90 days on investments in foreign postal coupons. After first-round investors harvested those profits, others flocked to Ponzi, unaware his ‘profits’ consisted of money paid in by other investors.

That strategy is unsustainable.

In contrast, Social Security is more like a ‘pay-as-you-go’ system transferring payroll tax payments by workers to retirees. A 2009 Social Security Administration online post stated: ‘The American Social Security system has been in continuous successful operation since 1935. Charles Ponzi’s scheme lasted barely 200 days.’

It’s different from a Ponzi scheme because it’s lasted thus far. It’s different because rather than my own money coming back to me it’s going to someone else. What sound logic. Continuing on:

Mitchell Zuckoff, a Boston University journalism professor who has written a book on Ponzi, noted three critical dissimilarities between Social Security and a Ponzi scheme. We will summarize Zuckoff’s comments from an earlier fact-check:

• ‘First, in the case of Social Security, no one is being misled,’ Zuckoff wrote in a January 2009 article in Fortune. ‘Social Security is exactly what it claims to be: A mandatory transfer payment system under which current workers are taxed on their incomes to pay benefits, with no promises of huge returns.’

• Second, he wrote, ‘A Ponzi scheme is unsustainable because the number of potential investors is eventually exhausted.’ While Social Security faces a huge burden due to retiring Baby Boomers, it can be and has been tweaked, and ‘the government could change benefit formulas or take other steps, like increasing taxes, to keep the system from failing.’

• Third, Zuckoff wrote, ‘Social Security is morally the polar opposite of a Ponzi scheme. … At the height of the Great Depression, our society (see ‘Social’) resolved to create a safety net (see ‘Security’) in the form of a social insurance policy that would pay modest benefits to retirees, the disabled and the survivors of deceased workers. By design, that means a certain amount of wealth transfer, with richer workers subsidizing poorer ones. That might rankle, but it’s not fraud.’

I see why Social Security has lasted for decades now. You pay into the system or you get to go to prison for tax evasion. The journalism professor wrote that there’s no huge returns, even though the Democratic Presidential candidates keep claiming that they’re going to have the Federal Government give out more “free” stuff. It’s not fraud because you don’t have a choice. Yet more sound logic.

12049738_761297503975650_5162165167884333271_n 12219545_10153150648706472_408308069280998254_n

In PolitiFact’s own article they essentially admit that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme that forces you to pay rather than going out of business.

Michael Tanner, an expert on Social Security at the libertarian Cato Institute says that Social Security and Ponzi schemes share some characteristics — for example, in the early stages there is a huge windfall while those later on get smaller returns.

However, Ponzi didn’t have the power of the federal government.

‘In the end the Ponzi scheme collapses and can’t make people continue to give him money, but Social Security can always force people to pay,’ Tanner said. ‘In theory Social Security can always go out and raise taxes to keep benefits flowing.’

PolitiFact still rates the claim that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme as being false though:

Curbelo said that Social Security and Medicare are ‘a Ponzi scheme.’

A Ponzi scheme is by definition an illegal crime and an unsustainable set-up that crashes very quickly. Social Security and Medicare, which have been around for decades, are not criminal schemes.

Both programs face the massive challenge of fewer workers paying for the benefits of current retirees, and budget experts say Congress could make changes to make them more sustainable in the future — though many politicians are reluctant to gamble with the support of current senior voters.

Curbelo raises a legitimate point about the need for reform, but that’s entirely different than calling these programs ‘Ponzi schemes.’

We rate this claim False.

Social Security is legal because FDR did everything possible to circumvent the Constitution and pack the Supreme Court. Social Security is legal because you don’t have a choice. Progressives have some interesting ideas on freedom and what is illegal.

Earlier in the article I mentioned Ida May Fuller, the first recipient of a monthly Social Security check. Ms. Fuller paid a grand total of $22.54 into Social Security and received $22,888.92 in benefits. There’s really not much that I can to say to anyone that thinks such a system is sustainable. She multiplied her contribution a thousand times over; what a fine investment! The SSA  seems to be gloating over how much money Ms. Fuller received. I guess we’ll just keep kicking the debt can down the road for now. As always, share this post with your friends and comment.

th

 

 

 

 

Feel the Bern, part three

Good evening comrades, it’s time to post more Party information and Truth on why Kommissar Bernie Sanders would be a great President of the coming United Socialist States of America (U.S.S.A). I will use many fine pieces of pictorial propaganda explain why Sanders is a fine Communist, I mean Democratic Party candidate. The wonderful folks at Economic Illiterates for Bernie Sanders 2016 have produced and Photoshopped many fine pictures and photographs. If you have a chance, you should pay patronage to their fine page. Let’s not dawdle any longer though, it’s time to see what you’ve been patiently awaiting. Enjoy!

 

12038607_427592297432542_160160998373813002_o12187908_764228390349228_2142762680098903258_n12079547_10204085245366018_6745435839845716313_n12243488_769055146533219_7552963879085079560_n12189004_10208060028684402_2691016260162994435_n12239867_1192850000741864_7516719369227766157_nBernie-Winners-copy

12042834_10206698989126342_3966493449740243648_n
Are you ready for the Socialist version of charity?

 

12141718_10153617980890610_7286761760024516042_n12219493_10153145122506472_3320879778572543011_nBernies-Free-Range-Dems-copy12243165_10154367412722782_8361544932074251864_n

 

12002444_1497281667253015_76186968420997306_o
I’ve been told by proud Party members that Bernie Sanders and his campaign don’t sell T-shirts…

shirtburn

bernie_shirt
Those Party members are true comrades who either aren’t able to use search engines, or willfully deny the Kurrent Truth for the Greater Good.
12063404_3900878633458_5371819611672332235_n
Is Communist Man Bernie’s favorite hero?
12043082_10206345052038704_1604411443540342526_n
Or is it perhaps, glorious Comrade Stalin?
12115949_895890326980_2823475806041322782_n
Are you ready for more Hope and Change comrade?
12109212_10101957320266634_8969746246945595539_n
Are you ready for the Socialist version of charity?
12190898_762816970490370_5529758425660035561_n
Are you ready to time travel to the era that Cuba is in?
11987121_743890502383017_3552519507080524887_n
Are you ready for the Socialist version of charity?

 

As always, don’t be shy. Share these wonderful photos and this amazing blog with your friends.

Why vote Hillary?

Why is it that evil RethugliKKKans and KKKonservatives, and Losertarians continue to oppose Shillary Hillary? How could fiends even as wretched as those individuals possibly oppose such an enlightened progressive? Why haven’t these losers looked at Hillary’s voting record and television interviews to see just how much she pushes the progressive agenda from the Wrar in Iraq, to marriage, the TPP, and to the evil gender wage gap. Let’s take a moment to look at the stunning achievements that Hillary has championed, shall we?

Hillary on the war in Iraq:

hillaryvoting

Hillary on gay marriage:

Hillary would never, ever flip-flop on issues just to garner votes. That’s simply beneath her. Let’s hear what she has to say about sexual assault victims:

Look at the confidence that people have in Hillary’s statements!

hillary_video

Remember, it’s Republicans that are engaging in a War on Womyn™. Hillary cares about what women and rape victims  think.

Hillary+clinton+the+war+on+women+the+real+war_a312aa_5291098 33250

Remember, as a proud and loyal Party member you must partake in the “two minutes of hate” every day against Bill Cosby. Any defense given by him or his lawyer must not be accepted. The charges are simply too serious to do otherwise.

The Republican War on Womyn™must be fought and their will broken.

ClintonCosbyPSANoMore war_on_women_hate

Understand that Hillary supports fighting the Patriarchy© and ending the evil gender wage gap. Any thoughtcriminal who dares to mention the Equal Pay Act of 1963 should be silenced. Even the Administrative arms of the government support equal pay. Isn’t that just wonderful?

worth-sharing2

Any evil RethugliKKKan’s who point out the gender wage gap in Hillary’s own campaign staff are buffoons who simply have no understanding of economics. While it’s OK for progs to use aggregate pay data rather than actually controlling for applicable factors when decrying the whole nation, it’s unacceptable to use such logic on a Progressive campaign.

Male-Female-comparison

Never forget peasants citizens, the differences in comparing what all men get paid versus all women have absolutely nothing to do with completely voluntary life choices. The Patriarchy© is at fault. But don’t talk about how almost all workplace deaths are men. That part of “equality” simply isn’t important.

death

Hillary has also accomplished quite a lot. Let’s hear what her supporters have to say about Hillary’s experience and qualifications:

Hillary was First Lady for a while and traveled a lot as Secretary of State. Don’t you dare ask Hillary how Libya is going though. As we can all clearly see, Hillary will make a fine Presidential candidate. The world of Next Tuesday™ is drawing near, and it will be quite glorious. Forward!

hillary-2016 Hillary_Old_Young_Hip