I just love reading what passes for news stories as I go through Yahoo! and its various clickbait articles. The first one is by Ja’han Jones of the Puffington Host entitled: “After Brett Kavanaugh’s Confirmation, One Word Ignited A Massive Debate About Feminism.” The article is about a poem called “Scream” (what an apt description of how progressives deal with politics) which someone edited after the left smeared Justice Kavanaugh with accusations that have no corroborating evidence or basis. Here’s the wonderful poem:
From the PuffHost article:
“Kaur’s followers alerted her to the alteration, which ignited a debate about how those with privilege adapt the language of resistance to their preferred narrative.
Kaur told HuffPost this week that the very invisibility her poem was intended to combat ended up being reinforced when her work was repurposed and popularized.”
I’m not really certain what is meant by “invisibility” but does it really matter what a straight, white male like myself thinks to the denizens of the Puffington Host? Let’s get some more context from the author of the poem, Jasmin Kaur:
“When you write specifically to counter your feelings of invisibility and smallness within a white supremacist society,“
“it’s disconcerting to see white people change your words to suit their own immediate needs.”
“I understand the sentiment of people needing to vote within the current political climate,”
“I also recognize all the ways that voting has been (and still is) inaccessible to many communities of colour.”
I wonder how voting is inaccessible to “communities of color“? The article never specifies and no evidence is presented. Perhaps the author or Ms. Kaur think that non-citizens should be able to vote? Anyway, back to the article:
“In giving Sikh women permission to scream, Kaur was acknowledging the righteousness of their anger without demanding they find a solution for it. She was affirming their entitlement to anger for their own purpose — intimate, painful, perhaps cathartic anger, rather than anger used solely in service of others.
The appropriation of Kaur’s words, then, invigorated conversation about allyship, political responsibility and who ought to be tasked with reversing America’s racist and sexist history.”
Who took away Ms. Kaur’s permission to talk? Who said that Mr. Kaur couldn’t be angry? What in the hell is “allyship“? I suppose that I’m just too logical damn racist to understand and properly answer any of my foolish questions. Let’s read some more hilarity from this article:
“There was a palatable air of hopelessness among the discourse surrounding Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation. Those who thought numerous corroborated claims of sexual assault levied against Kavanaugh would stifle his elevation to the court were stunned — albeit probably not shocked — when conservative senators cast the allegations aside and confirmed him anyway.”
“On Wednesday, Facebook user Jason Stovetop Littlejohn shared a video of the ensuing argument, reportedly outside the Sahara Deli in Flatbush, N.Y. ‘Meet Cornerstore Caroline. White Woman calls police on a kid, saying he sexually assaulted her,’he wrote. ‘As I walked up I noticed the argument, apparently, the kid brushed up against her and she said he touched her and decided to call police on a nine-year-old child. As you can see the kid is crying and the mom is upset.”
It just gets better and better:
“The New York City Police Department tells Yahoo Lifestyle that no related complaint reports are filed, although according to Pix11, officers did respond after the crowd had dispersed. Yahoo Lifestyle could not reach a representative of Sahara Deli for comment; however, the owner told Pix11: ‘The woman has a history of being unwell.’ Heavy also reported that Klein, of Missouri, studied sociology at the University of Missouri and is a former actress and performer.”
Oh, a sociology major huh? That explains something I suppose. I thought that progressives wanted everyone to “believe women” and “believe survivors“? Not if it doesn’t fit the narrative I suppose and only when it’s politically expedient. I wonder how a typical leftist would really like it if they could be falsely convicted of a crime with zero evidence? Derp, “Kavanaugh was in a job interview, not a criminal trial.” I wonder how many regressives would like such an argument used against themselves?
Only a few of you who live in or are considered residents of a small part of Northern California would vote for one of these three men, but since they’re on my ballot I’ll post up some short videos of their beliefs up. Here are the two Republican candidates:
N Eugene Cleek
And here’s the Communist Democratic candidate:
I’m sure that Garamendi will pass a law to force Earth’s climate to never change again. Just be ready to give up most of your income and I’m sure he’ll find a way to force China and India to use less coal and keep their people impoverished. Next, he’ll put a giant soletta up to stop solar energy from reaching the Earth’s surface.
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.
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.) ”
“‘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.’”
“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…
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.”
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.
Some people never really responded…
Like I said at the beginning, there was one individual who was reasonable and not full of hate.
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…
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.
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?
Then there was a woman by the name of Sally Sallernio who makes some wondrous claims yet is also unable to back them up.
She actually argued that facts don’t matter…
I know what Comrade Sally needs in her life, a lifetime subscription to Poor Me! magazine.
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.
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!
Greetings comrades, tonight we will be exploring a new frontier in social justice: air conditioning. Let’s listen to Comrade Sanghani break it down for us:
Now let’s take a look at what the Communist News Network has to say concerning this issue:
All feminists need to create a most equal society is more power and most importantly, more money. You may not have known before that air conditioning is sexist but now you do. Perhaps a more important question is: what isn’t sexist? What new boundaries will social justice push? What new slights and insults will be discovered? Perhaps gay men are sexist for not wanting to have sex with women? Subscribe to Poor Me! magazine to find out!
These thoughtcriminals dared to scoff at the valiant feminists in the videos. Off to the gulag with them!
Honestly, how is one supposed to satirize such a story? What could I add to make feminism seem any more ridiculous? I could always identify actual restrictions of liberty and persecution for them. How about Iran, where it is a matter of national policy to follow Sharia and execute homosexuals? We could look at South Africa, where one in four men admit to committing rape? I guess that it’s the white man’s fault that Iran executes homosexuals. Based upon one of the Puffington Host articles I found about South Africa that’s what progressives seem to be doing:
“The South African Constitution is arguable one of the most progressive constitutions in the world, for innumerable reasons, but for the purposes of this blog post, I want to focus on the fact that Section 9, Subsection 3 specifically prohibits discrimination against people on the basis of their sexual orientation.”
“The problem, though, is that there seems to be a gap in South Africa between the legal realm and the sociocultural realm. And in this gap appears the phenomenon known as ‘corrective’ rape. Corrective rape is a phenomenon wherein a homosexual person is raped as a means of ‘correcting’ their sexual orientation. In most cases, the victims are black lesbians. This phenomenon takes place in other countries as well, but for the purposes of this post I’m focusing on South Africa.”
“In South Africa most cases of corrective rape are against black lesbians, and I’m going to analyze this phenomenon in the context of a post-apartheid South Africa deeply embedded in a culture of heteronormativity. I read a very enlightening article by Megan Morrissey in the journal Womyn’s Studies in Communication, which talks about the discourse among black South Africans around corrective rape. In the article Morrissey discusses the common argument from black Africans that the practice of homosexuality is un-African, something brought about during colonization. ”
“Many people quoted and interviewed in the article state that homosexuality is exclusive to the white man and his culture. By distancing black African culture from homosexuality, these people marginalize black gay Africans from their own culture. There is a further alienation of black lesbians, who would only be allowed back into the larger culture if their non-normative sexual orientation changed. So men subject these womyn to corrective rape as a ‘rite of passage’ back into the culture, because they believe that this act would force these womyn to ‘submit,’ become heterosexual, and assume their ‘proper’ role in society. ”
Even though the crime is being committed by someone else, the evil white man is to blame for someone else’s culture.
“In South Africa, homosexuality is associated with white culture, and because of the years of apartheid rule, there exist tensions between black and white cultures in South Africa. Homophobia and violence, in the form of corrective rape, is a means to marginalize the white culture and regain a nationalistic identity that they believe was stolen from them due to years of colonization and apartheid.
Corrective rape is thus, on a very general level, a post-colonial and post-apartheid reaction to the white culture in South Africa. This explanation does not excuse their actions, but is does trace the violence back to the source. The question is: What next? The reason that corrective rape has persisted is that there has been a cultural, social, and even legal normalization and acceptance of the practice.”
So, black South Africans are doing what they did before the British Empire pushed the Boer Republics and black African nations together in the same country? This is the fault of the Dutch, Boer Republics, and British? Amazing logic.
“There needs to be a cultural and social resocialization and subsequent normalization of homosexuality in South Africa, and the first step toward ensuring that the citizens accept non-normative sexuality is to show that the state supports it. To do that, the state needs to provide legal and political recourse for victims and survivors of corrective rape in South Africa.”
So South Africa needs to undergo “resocialization” does it? I thought that progressives believed that “indigenous” cultures should be left alone? The author, Ms. Okafor, doesn’t seem to realize that politics follows culture. Ms. Okafor might not also realize that reality doesn’t work like McMaster University. South Africa is acrime-ridden hellhole, and that’s probably not changing anytime soon.
Don’t you just love it when Proud Party Progs ask about who would build the roads without socialism? Let’s look at what one Ms. Ellen McPhretes had to say on the issue:
I’ll have more to add later about the glorious comments of Ellen, but for now lets talk about roads maintained by the government. In case you haven’t heard, the El Niño Southern Oscillation is bringing some heavy rainstorms to North America. San Diego (along with the rest of Southern California) doesn’t seem to deal very well with rain. I happen to live in the Midway District and was greeted with a couple feet of water on Midway Drive due to a storm that dropped a half inch of rain.
I just can’t be impressed enough with the job that the City of San Diego is doing with the roads; it’s another shining example of government efficiency. Compared to many other roads in San Diego though, Midway wasn’t that bad and at least passable in a truck with decent ground clearance. Miramar Road and Kearny Mesa Boulevard were covered in four feet at some spots.
“The City Council’s Environment Committee Wednesday unanimously called for the city of San Diego to declare a state of emergency to help get storm channels cleared before the brunt of El Niño storms arrive.
The committee members pointed to Tuesday night’s lightning-punctuated rainfall as an example of what this winter’s climate conditions might bring. According to the National Weather Service, 1.09 inches of rain fell at Lindbergh Field, a record for the date and already surpassing the November average.
Because of environmental concerns, it’s a laborious process for San Diego to acquire the permits needed to remove vegetation and debris from the city’s 133 miles of storm channels. At a news conference before the committee meeting, Councilman David Alvarez said the State Regional Water Board can take two years to process permit applications for scheduled storm channel maintenance.”
Two years to receive permission to clear some garbage, plants, and animals from storm drains. The Democratic People’s Republic of Kalifornia (DPRK) has some amazing laws doesn’t it?
“In emergency situations, such as when a major storm is imminent, the city can go to the Army Corps of Engineers to get the necessary permits, the councilman said. However, that has to happen a few days before a storm hits.
He said an emergency declaration could help the city obtain a blanket permit to clear out the most clogged channels well in advance of dangerous storms.”
This just keeps getting better and better. Can’t risk killing a random animal right?
“David Gibson of the water board said the governor is considering such a declaration, but it’s unknown when it would be issued. He said the agency has expedited city requests in the past and invited San Diego officials to submit permit applications.
The proposed emergency declaration was met with some reluctance from the mayor’s office because of previous litigation.
‘Five years ago, the city declared a state of emergency to clear the Tijuana River Valley and was sued, resulting in years of litigation that postponed maintenance work,’ mayoral spokesman Matt Awbrey said.
‘Doing so again could open up taxpayers to more lawsuits, fines and actually end up delaying work further,’ Awbrey said. ‘We are unable to move faster than state and federal regulations will allow, so the mayor is asking regulators for relief so we can take all necessary actions to prepare San Diego in the event of an El Niño storm event.’
Alvarez and committee member Marti Emerald said the city might get sued, and lose, but in the meantime would be protecting property.”
There’s no winning for San Diego; if you clean the storm drains you get sued by the DPRK and lose. If you don’t clean the drains, there’s millions in property damage. Maybe by the time the next El Niño hits the clogged stormed drains will be clear? The drains that are currently clear will probably be clogged though. With the way that the DPRK is currently going I’m pretty certain the only way to win is to leave the state.
It seems that Frau Merkel believes her position as Chancellor of Germany may be threatened in the next set of elections; she now wants to “drastically decrease” the number of migrants entering Germany. From the Yahoo News! story:
“Merkel has resisted pressure from allies within her Christian Democratic Union (CDU) to put a cap on the number of refugees entering Germany, which is expected to top 1 million this year.”
Only one million huh?
“‘At the same time we took on board the concerns of the people, who are worried about the future, and this means we want to reduce, we want to drastically decrease the number of people coming to us,’ Merkel told broadcaster ARD.”
“Merkel, whose popularity has fallen over her handling of the refugee crisis, said the word ‘limit’ did not feature in the CDU’s main resolution which will be debated at the two-day party congress starting on Monday in the southern city of Karlsruhe.”
Perhaps it’s time to add the word “limit” to the CDU’s vocabulary.
“The chancellor added there was broad support in the CDU for her strategy to reduce the numbers.”
“This included working with Turkey to fight traffickers, improving the situation at Syrian refugee camps in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan, and strengthening control of the European Union’s outer borders.”
How about strengthening the borders of European countries as well? How about E.U. member states regaining control over their countries?
“Merkel’s conservative critics want her to get the number of arrivals down before three state elections in March and say her hopes of running for a fourth term in 2017 would be in danger.”
I wonder if Merkel would admit to this?
“Her critics say her decision in late August to allow Syrian asylum seekers to remain in Germany regardless which EU country they had first entered had accelerated the influx of migrants.”
The migrants can’t get enough free stuff in Italy or Greece.
Here’s a video of these poor, oppressed, and peace-loving migrants turning down free food and water:
“‘Next year is about one thing in particular: our cohesion,’ she said. It is important we don’t allow ourselves to be divided. It is crucial not to follow those who, with coldness or even hatred in their hearts, lay a sole claim to what it means to be German and seek to exclude others,’ she urged, in a reference to ring-wing populists and xenophobic street rallies.“
I see that the Party media apparatus is hard at work. Anyone who disagrees with adding a million “refugees” a year and Sharia must be a xenophobe, right? I think that citizens of European countries are tiring of being called bigots and xenophobic. As I stated earlier the Socialist Party was crushed in recent French elections and the same may happen to the CSU/CDU in Germany soon. The United Kingdom is holding a referendum on European Union membership in 2017 and could easily exit the EU. If your interested you could always donate to the Leave EU campaign. Czech President Milos Zeman called the recent immigration wave “an organized invasion.” The EU is cracking up and I wonder how many years it will last? Bets anyone?
One of the most interesting articles that I’ve seen lately on Yahoo! News concerns how European Union leaders are worried about control of Europe slipping from their grasp. From the article “‘EU in danger’ of disappearing, warns Schulz” European Parliament President Martin Schulz believes that the E.U. may not last another decade.
“‘The European Union is in danger. No one can say whether the EU will still exist in this form in 10 years,’ Schulz said in an interview with German newspaper Die Welt.”
Free trade isn’t enough for elitists such as Schulz; he and his other central planners must dictate how European governments operate.
“In the EU there were now ‘forces at work to drive us apart,’ said the German politician.”
I thought that E.U. leaders claimed to care about democracy? Not when it gets in the way of their control it seems.
“We must avoid this because the consequences would be dramatic.”
You don’t say Schulz? Dramatic consequences such as not tying Germany, France, Portugal, and Greece to the same currency?
“The alternative to the EU would be a ‘Europe of nationalism, a Europe of borders and walls’ — a formula that had led the continent into ‘catastrophe’ repeatedly in the past, Schulz said.”
Schulz wouldn’t want citizens of European countries to think for themselves as it’s simply too dangerous. Never fear though, he will ensure the safety of Europe by: taxing its peoples of the majority of their incomes, controlling their lives, and bringing in millions of refugees while doing nothing to verify that there are no dangerous elements among them. What could possibly go wrong with such a plan?
“Germany is on course to take in one million asylum seekers this year, half of them from Syria.”
Based upon recent election results in France I believe that French citizens do not care what people like Schulz think. The Front National has received more votes than both the Republicans and Socialist Party.
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:
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.
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. ”
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.
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.
Good evening comrades, today’s post will go over all the wonderful deeds and accomplishments that President Obama has achieved for the United Socialist States of America. Our current piece of pictorial propaganda comes from the fine folks at Occupy Communists Democrats:
“In 2013, there were 26.5 births for every 1,000 adolescent females ages 15-19, or 273,105 babies born to females in this age group. Nearly eighty-nine percent of these births occurred outside of marriage. The 2013 teen birth rate indicates a decline of ten percent from 2012 when the birth rate was 29.4 per 1,000.The teen birth rate has declined almost continuously over the past 20 years. In 1991, the U.S. teen birth rate was 61.8 births for every 1,000 adolescent females, compared with 26.5 births for every 1,000 adolescent females in 2013. Still, the U.S. teen birth rate is higher than that of many other developed countries, including Canada and the United Kingdom.” (emphasis added)
If you look down the article a little further you see that it’s Southern states that have the highest teen pregnancy rates. But before comrades use this as evidence that the dumb, gun and religion clinging, xenophobic, KKKonservatives and Rethuglicans are hypocrites let’s take a look at some state data. In this case, I’ll use Texas.