Social Security is not a handout. Workers and employers contribute jointly through payroll taxes. Social Security had become part of the American economic fabric. And the Bush administration should stop treating Social Security as if it were just another government program.
What exactly is Social Security, Ms. Thomas, if not a handout? That’s exactly what it is. There are no “accounts”. There is no “lockbox”. The monies for Social Security go in to and come out of the general fund. The government robs Peter to pay Paul. It’s a handout.
Employers contribute nothing to Social Security. Just ask the millions of self-employed businesspeople in this country, who have to pay the full load. The “half” of Social Security employers “pay” is simply monies never seen by the employee. That’s one reason why more people aren’t up in arms over Social Security reform. They don’t understand how much of their money is going to this increasingly wasteful handout, because they never see that money in the first place. And even if that money was going to the employee, it would be going to some person, either the business owner or shareholders. Businesses never pay taxes. People do.
Finally, Social Security is “just another government program.” Like many such programs, it had its time, when it was needed, but that time is past. There are so many options out there for investors to save money through, that will offer greater returns than Social Security ever will. (Not to mention that with the increasing reduction in benefits people have seen over the decades, it’s not very secure, is it?)
Some pols need to have the guts to grandfather Social Security and kill it. It’s the only reasonable and sane thing to do so our great-grandchildren aren’t having to deal with it.
Tag: politics
Meanwhile, Democrat leaders want to have it both ways. Some say we should withdraw from Iraq. Others demand that we add many more troops, while simultaneously complaining about the enormity of the federal deficit (despite the recent good news on this front, by the way).
Democrats condemn the president for “nation building” and intermeddling, yet insist we micromanage the Iraqi constitutional drafting process to ensure American-type civil rights for women (which, of course, is laudable). Along with the press they shamelessly prop up and exploit a grieving mother to serve as a sympathetic vehicle to carry their inane conspiratorial charges against the president with total disregard for how that demoralizes our troops and undermines our cause.
“[T]he States can best govern our home concerns and the general government our foreign ones. I wish, therefore…never to see all offices transferred to Washington, where, further withdrawn from the eyes of the people, they may more secretly be bought and sold at market.” –Thomas Jefferson
The term you’re looking for here is “rolling over in his grave.”
Ben Shapiro takes aim at the anti-war mouth-foamers on the left.
Tolerating intolerance, goodhearted people are beginning to see, does not necessarily produce tolerance in turn.
[…]
Multiculturalism is based on the lie that all cultures are morally equal. In practice, that soon degenerates to: All cultures are morally equal, except ours, which is worse. But all cultures are not equal in respecting representative government, guaranteed liberties and the rule of law. And those things arose not simultaneously and in all cultures, but in certain specific times and places — mostly in Britain and America, but also in various parts of Europe.
In America, as in Britain, multiculturalism has become the fashion in large swathes of our society. So the Founding Fathers are presented only as slaveholders, World War II is limited to the internment of Japanese-Americans and the bombing of Hiroshima. Slavery is identified with America, though it has existed in every society and the antislavery movement arose first among English-speaking evangelical Christians.
But most Americans know there is something special about our cultural heritage. While Harvard and Brown are replacing scholars of the founding period with those studying other things, book-buyers are snapping up first-rate histories of the Founders by David McCullough, Joseph Ellis and Ron Chernow.
Mutilculturalist intellectuals do not think our kind of society is worth defending. But millions here and increasing numbers in Britain and other countries know better.
I felt “The Patriot Perspective” from today’s Federalist Patriot (PDF file) was worth reprinting.
If you had any doubts that the FAA’s (see post title for definition of acronym) flight regulations regarding anti-terrorism were completely insane, there’s this, courtesy of the Air Finance Journal:
Before deploying from Savannah, Georgia to Iraq by a chartered airliner, the troops of the 48th Brigade Combat Team, a National Guard unit, had to go through the same security checks as any other passengers. Lt. Col. John King, the unit’s commander, told his 280 fellow soldiers that FAA anti-hijacking regulations require passengers to surrender pocket knives, nose hair scissors and cigarette lighters. “If you have any of those things,” he said, almost apologetically, “put them in this box now.” The troops were, however, allowed to keep hold of their assault rifles, body armour, helmets, pistols, bayonets and combat shotguns.
[Via Political Diary, emphasis added. –R]
If you didn’t hear Nancy Pelosi’s press conference yesterday, you missed the pure sound of a loser who will never be anything but a loser because she cannot get above her own bitterness to ask what it is that allows the president to keep winning hand after hand.
(The press conference in question was held on Thursday, 28 July.)
So a journalist from the Washington Post calls Hugh Hewitt, asking for an interview. Sure, replies Hugh. But it has to be on the air, live. Journalist declines. Hugh posits:
Isn’t journalism supposed to be in the public interest? If Goldstein wants information from me, and I am willing to give it to her, isn’t she putting her own interests in a “scoop” or an “angle” ahead of the public’s by refusing to conduct an interview she thought would be useful in the first place? And isn’t she going forward with a story she knows may well be unnecessarily incomplete because she doesn’t like the fact that her questions and my answers would have been on the record?
I of course want my listeners to get a chance if not to see the sausage that is MSM “news” being made, at least hear it being ground fine. I had hoped to compare whatever I was able to provide Ms. Goldstein with whatever it is that she publishes on the subject. Interesting all around, no?
But she declined to conduct the interview she requested. How interesting to note that the Post is willing to use sources that insist on anonymity, but not sources that demand transparency.
[Emphasis added. –R]
This is the third and final part of a series on national security run in the pages of The Federalist Patriot. This part can be found in today’s issue (PDF file), and is reprinted here with permission.