Is this a wacked-out criticism by some anarchist or "extremist?" Well, yes . . . but that doesn't mean it isn't true.
The mainstream mindset is that government exists to solve all our problems, and that libertarians are unbelievers. Nihilists.
Michael D. Tanner reminds us that "Saying No Is Not Nihilism." He directs his remarks to Republicans, but even Libertarians sometimes forget this message.
Tanner applies this valuable thinking to Social Security and Medicare: How Entitlements Will Destroy Us.
"Destroy" is not too strong a word.
Please read those two articles.
Bernie Madoff told thousands of clients that their "investments" had earned them almost $65 billion. His promises were just lies. His clients lost an estimated $18 billion that they had contributed to Madoff's scheme, and did not have returned. The money was paid out to previous "investors."
As Tanner points out in those very important articles above, the government's Social Security system has told its clients that their "investments" will pay them nearly $16 trillion. These promises are lies. I don't have the numbers on the amount the more recent investors have put into this scheme, but their money will not be returned. Their money has been paid out to previous "contributors." Every dime you have "contributed" to Social Security is gone.
There is nothing there for you.
Of course, in any ponzi scheme, the first few "investors" -- those at the top of the pyramid -- really do receive more than they pay in. It's the masses at the bottom of the pyramid -- a much larger number -- that lose everything. They lose what they "contributed" and they lose what they were promised, and whatever "security" they were depending on.
Are you depending on the federal government for security?
Bernie Madoff is evil.
Social Security is evil.
For exactly the same reasons.
Except Social Security is even more evil.
The Federal Government is more evil than Bernie Madoff.
Bernie Madoff couldn't even pretend to keep his promises.
The Federal Government can pretend.
Bernie Madoff couldn't create the money he promised his investors.
The Federal Government can.
On our Social Security page, we quote an exchange from Congressional Hearings on Social Security between a respected Senator and the Social Security Commissioner. The Senator says that the voters in his state have been promised returns on their "investments." The Senator doesn't want to break his promise, like Bernie Madoff did, but the Social Security system is bankrupt. So the Senator proposes creating money out of thin air to pay Social Security beneficiaries.
The Senator wants to "keep his promises" to the elderly. He promised 15 trillion of these things called "dollars" to the elderly, and he wants the elderly to have 15 trillion of these "dollars."
Inflating the money supply, however, will destroy the purchasing power of the dollar. The Senator knows this. He brazenly admits:
It may not be worth anything when the recipient gets it, but he is going to get his benefits paid."We have the capacity under the Constitution" (he wrongfully claims),
the Congress does, to coin money, as well as to regulate the value thereof. And therefore we have the power to provide that money. And we are going to do it.The Social Security Commissioner responds:
I tend to agree.This is a deliberate conspiracy to destroy the dollar, is it not? A conspiracy is two people agreeing to do something evil. Printing dollars until dollars are worthless is evil, is it not?
It is not just the elderly that are going to have "dollars" that "may not be worth anything." ("May not?") Everybody's dollar will be worthless after 15 trillion of them are printed up so that politicians can "keep" their promises.
The Senator cannot be unaware of the fact that after the German hyperinflation of 1922-23, Adolf Hitler was the result.
But at least the Senator will have kept his promise to provide the elderly with 15 trillion objects called "dollars."
Bernie Madoff destroyed his clients, but at least he didn't destroy America.
This is why Social Security is evil.
This is why the Federal Government is more evil than Bernie Madoff.
Are you willing to destroy America in order to get your benefits? Or will you surrender your "right" to "entitlements" and vote for a candidate who promises to abolish all evil government ponzi schemes, and every program for the compulsory redistribution of wealth?
3 comments:
Ozarks Virtual Town Hall - "Honoring Social Security, Not Privatizing It," says President Obama.
The Social Security system is unethical, immoral, and should be abolished immediately.
Bernie Madoff should have repented FIRST, and THEN figured out how to make his victims whole. Continuing to lie to and steal from new "investors" is not an ethical option.
Abolish the bankrupt Social Security, and fresh ideas on how to honor the elderly will emerge. Americans will not let retirees starve to death. Politicians will.
Kevin, I was attracted to your post by the title "Just Say NO". And I took you advice and read the 2 posts you refer to early in your post. I have to say I saw nothing new here and have heard or read the same arguments elsewhere many times.
I occurs to me that there is something missing here. If you really believe what you say, then perhaps it would be evident in your personal behavior. Are you old enough to start taking the Social Security benefit you are elegible for under the current law of the land? If so, have you declined to accept it? If you are not old enough to receive such benefits, have you pledged not to accept Social Security benefits?
You see, we do live in a mostly free country, at least for now. You can "Just Say NO". I think those of us who believe Social Security, Medicare, etc. are social insecurity and that these programs are morally wrong; need to start demonstrating our beliefs in our actions. In a similar vein, I have started challanging my friends who say we must have a carbon tax to save the world from global warming; that I'll start to consider their view once they start paying a carbon tax, voluntarily to the US Government.
When enough people start demonstrating their beliefs voluntarily in a particular arena, the politicians will follow.
Some food for thought, I hope, Scepticus
Thank you for your thoughtful comment.
Are you old enough to start taking the Social Security benefit you are elegible for under the current law of the land?
I honestly don't know the law well enough to know whether I'm eligible for anything or not. A few years ago I could have said I was "addicted" to something -- anything -- and been eligible for SSI "Disability." But I think they've tightened that up a bit. I haven't applied for any benefits, and do not intend to do so.
If so, have you declined to accept it?
I suspect that if I don't apply, I won't have to decline anything. Who knows? Maybe accepting Social Security checks has been made compulsory to "stimulate" the economy. If I'm taken unconscious to a hospital, there's a good chance the hospital will find some way to sign me up for Medicaid and accept my benefits for me.
I would like my campaign to have such an effect that when I'm old enough to be eligible, the program will have already been abolished.
If you are not old enough to receive such benefits, have you pledged not to accept Social Security benefits?
I don't know what you would consider a qualifying "pledge," but I have no intention of asking the government to take money from other hard-working people and give it to me when I'm not working.
That might be easy for me to say. I had a part-time job one summer in college, and no doubt FICA was withheld. Since that time I have worked in social services (church-school, legal aid, homeless shelter, elder-care, etc.) where I received no salary, no paycheck, only room and board. No FICA withheld since that college job.
That makes any "pledge" not to accept Social Security payments a pretty easy one.
Most people justify government violence against current workers by saying "It's my money; I contributed it while I was working" (even though any half-way intelligent person should know that their money was given to defence contractors to bomb Iraq, and was not saved for future payments, and that their SS checks are confiscated from younger workers). But self-deception is no less tempting.
So I don't think I'm giving much up by pledging not to accept any SS money that's coming to me. I doubt I have much, if any, coming to me.
Post a Comment