This blog printed on 100% recycled electrons.
Proof: ask Bob Ellis, organizer of the Black Hills Tea Party/"Citizens for Liberty." He reveals the Tea Party's intent to destroy Medicare and Social Security in comments on the Madville Times, in which Ellis declares Medicare and Social Security illegal and its supporters and recipients un-American:
...there is not a shred of authority for the federal government to create a health care system, administer a health care system, create a charity or administer a charity.
...I have countless tims [sic] denounced Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security for the un-American, un-Constitutional programs they are.
My postulation IS that Medicare is a violation of the Constitution. That is my postulation because it clearly IS a violation of the Constitution. Can you find a health care system or a system of charity authorized in Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution? I certainly can't. That makes it a clear violation of the Constitution [Bob Ellis, Citizens for Liberty, comments on "Russell Olson Loses on GOP Health Care Nullification...," Madville Times, 2010.02.28–03.01].
No way around it: senior citizens, the Tea Party wants to throw you under the fiscal bus.
Consider also that the following people have signed on as fans of Citizens for Liberty, the South Dakota branch of the purportedly grassroots group who would take away Medicare and Social Security:
- Chris Nelson, Secretary of State, candidate for U.S. House
- R. Blake Curd, state representative, candidate for U.S. House
- B. Thomas Marking, candidate for U.S. House
- Brock Greenfield, state representative
- Charles B. Hoffman, state representative
- Dan Lederman, state representative
- Jason Gant, state senator
- Dusty Johnson, South Dakota Public Utilities Commission
- Jon Lauck, senior advisor to Senator John Thune
Voters, give the Tea Party an inch, and they will take away your Medicare and Social Security.
SSN is unfair to those that die before age 62. They are not allowed to will their ssn tax to whomever or whatever they would like.
ReplyDeleteIf we were allowed to keep the 12.4% the feds take and invest it ourselves and buy our own life insurance, we would all be better off.
I would like to keep medicare, but dump ssn.
It really scares you to think that you might have to take responsibility for yourself, doesn't it Cory? Even thinking for yourself is scary; it's so much easier to lean on Marxist talking points for something to say, isn't it?
ReplyDeleteWhile I didn't speak for Citizens for Liberty OR the Tea Party movement (though you love the idea of smearing any person or group that would dare advocate American values and a return to Constitutional government), I continue to challenge you to find authority for the socialist Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security programs in the enumerated powers of Article 1 Section 8. They simply aren't there.
We are long, long overdue for returning our nation to its Constitutional boundaries. If our republic is to survive, we must rid ourselves of this unhealthy (and unsustainable) dependence on government and this reliance on robbing the property of other people to pay for things we should be doing for ourselves. All of your precious socialist programs are going bankrupt, requiring more and more theft from Americans to keep them plodding along; we couldn't maintain them indefinitely even if we did pass a constitutional amendment that would allow them.
Of course, you'd like to scare any candidate who is foolish enough to listen to you away from embracing the Tea Party movement and the American values they champion. You realize the days of liberal dominance are endangered by a resurgence of understanding about how our government was designed to operate, and that it appears very likely your fellow socialists will be thrown out of office in droves later this year. Liberals have successfully frightened people with cries of "The Republicans are coming for your Social Security!" for years. But people have wised-up; they know we must begin the process of phasing out these un-American programs and return to the private system that made America the greatest nation on earth.
You probably don't have the slightest idea how petulant and silly you look, stomping up and down like a spoiled brat when someone points out that your socialist emperor has no clothes. If you did, you'd get your act together and stop being such a hateful child.
How profoundly sad that you insist on continually assaulting and undermining the U.S. Constitution--the very document designed to protect your freedom as well as the freedom of every American. While you are too drunk on Marxist dogma to realize this, the Tea Party people you loathe so viscerally are fighting to protect YOUR freedom. Although, I think it has become clear that you find your freedom too burdensome; you'd rather have some bureaucracy do your thinking for you and wipe your nose for you.
Freedom IS a burden, but a pleasant one for mature, responsible people. Tea Party people embrace that "burden" of making their own decisions, as do most of the political figures you have attempted to scare here.
I encourage you to consider embracing the challenge of being an American. I encourage you cast aside your fears and embrace the challenge of freedom. You might even consider reading a great plan to start weening our nation off the opiate of socialism and returning us to freedom and constitutional government:http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/plan/#Intro
No one who embraces freedom and the American way ever regrets it.
This from Bob, who once criticized my own wordy response as a sign of my own annoyance and wrongness.
ReplyDeleteBob, how often do I have to remind you that it's not about me? It's about the thousands of South Dakota senior citizens who will reject your plan to take away their Medicare and Social Security.
Go ahead, campaign on that. If you think can convince the electorate that we need a revolution that includes destroying the social safety net for retirees, then have at it. But you're going to need to stop wasting your breath calling me names and focus on the really hard sell of convincing the voters of your losing cause.
Hold on Cory. We don't have to through seniors under the bus. We can return what they and their employees paid into the unconstitutional ponzi scheme over the years. I am 8 years from retirement, and my latest report shows that I and my employers have paid in over $200,000. Hey, I could retire even earlier if I would get the unconstitutional taking away of my property. So stop using scare tactics.
ReplyDeleteAnd just maybe I would want to continue working to keep the 13% pay raise that all working Americans would get when the unconstitutional payroll taxes are removed.
Now what true-blooded patriotic American would not want a 13% pay raise?
Anon 5:13-
ReplyDeleteHave you seriously contemplated the ramifications of eliminating social security regardless of constitutional legitimacy?
For those that are doing very well when they retire, it probably wouldn't affect them at all. They would have made the good decisions (or gotten lucky...) anyway. However, for those that make bad decision, that piss away their money; they would not be prepared like you are.
Would you really let those that make poor decisions die of hunger/cold/etc.? I doubt it. So the only real options are to either pay for them out of pocket or to take money from them throughout their life to pay for their "retirement".
Social security is as much of an "I don't want to pay for you" program as any.
I don't think you've thought your clever plan through.
Cory, once again, you either don't have or aren't interested in the depth to grasp even the most elementary things I try to tell you. I don't "name call;" I describe. I'm not afraid to call things what they are, and I don't award points to people based on baseless and contradictory professions.
ReplyDeleteI might also point out that I it is quite clear no one is attempting to wipe our your precious socialist "safety net" for seniors. Every proposal I have ever seen allows seniors (and even those within a stone's throw of retirement) to remain on this un-American plan. These people, after all, have been forced to surrender their property to fund the system their entire life, and at this point have too little time to make other arrangements if they have not already done so. The rest of us will bear the burden of continuing to support them in exchange for finally being done with this ponzi scheme in a few decades, while the remainder of our funds (our property, not someone else's and not the government's) go to a private system of our choosing.
So you see: your fear-mongering attempts to scare people into clinging to dead-end socialism and away from working to protect their freedoms is as empty and misleading as the rest of your socialist prattle.
Being able to choose (something liberals only advocate when it means choosing to kill your own child) and the freedom to use one's property as one sees fit is the American way, after all. I know you despise the American way, but there are plenty of opportunities to live under socialism around the world: North Korea, China, and even some as geographically near as Canada or Cuba. Why not put your money (or is it "the state's money"?) where your mouth is, move somewhere more suited to your tastes, and leave Americans in peace?
I won't be holding my breath.
Bob-
ReplyDeleteWhy is your country list so narrow? Honestly, shouldn't it include every country in western Europe? Japan, S. Korea? Taiwan?
I mean honestly, the only countries that fit your definition of freedom are places like Somalia where there is no rule of law.
Could you please list out all of the countries that fit your ideal of "not socialist".
Tony, you must not understand what socialism is. One could definitely include most European countries in the list of socialist enclaves, but not all hellholes are socialist; there are plenty of Islamic hellholes and some that are purely corrupt hellholes.
ReplyDeleteYou must also misunderstand conservatism and traditional American government; neither are lawless. Rather, they are based on a system of laws that maintains a balance of established order while limiting government from threatening freedom.
It's truly sad that some Americans are so bereft of understanding of political systems in general, but especially the American way of life. This sad state goes a long way in explaining how the majority of Americans (who voted) came to elect an open Marxist to the presidency in 2008.