Tag Archives: Law

Ponzi schemes: Illegal for Bernie Madoff but not the government

As I noted in Repeat after me: There is no Social Security “trust fund”:

There is no trust fund.  No. Trust. Fund. Anyone claiming there is such a thing is ignorant and/or trying to deceive you.

The government does not have the capability to set aside funds in a bank account like we do.  When the Social Security funds come in they are spent on Social Security, or, as they have done for decades, on other spending projects they didn’t want to raise taxes to fund.  Decades of dishonesty and financial mismanagement by both parties are becoming more visible.

If Social Security taxes stopped today there wouldn’t be a penny saved to meet the commitments the government made.  It is the world’s largest Ponzi scheme.

If some of these Social Security funds went to private investments that you could control then that would limit how much the politicians could abuse.  But they don’t want to lose control, so they play on your fears that something bad will happen.

Yes, the market could crash and you could lose your investments.  It is a risky world.  But think about this: Whether your private account crashed or not it isn’t like the government is saving our taxes today to pay out tomorrow.  Either way the payouts they will make 10 years from now will come from taxes paid 10 years from now.

Simply put, we can’t lose by having at least part of current contributions devoted to private accounts.  The politicians will lose because they’ll have to find a way to fund current spending, or not spend the money at all.

Don’t let fear-mongering by politicians fool you.  The system has been broken for a long time.  Democrats didn’t want you to be informed and Republicans didn’t try hard enough to inform you.  But it isn’t that complicated.

Here are some great ideas from Time to Opt Out of the Social Security Ponzi Scheme.  I urge you to the whole thing.  Now is the time to educate people on how Social works, why it is doomed to fail, and what we can do about it now.  Those young people who swallowed Obama’s lies and are now unemployed and saddled with massive college debts may be willing to listen to some truth now.  Same thing for middle-aged people who will realize that they will spend their careers paying into a system that will be beyond bankrupt when they retire.

The Social Security Ponzi scheme is perhaps the most consequential government infringement upon our lives.  Conservatives are justifiably outraged that Obama egregiously mandated that we purchase health insurance.  However, the individual mandate is not nearly as meddlesome and tyrannical as the government’s complete control over our retirement security.  The only reason why these two programs are regarded differently by the public, is because Social Security has been around for 75 years.  Consequently, most Americans are conditioned to believe that a person’s retirement is indissolubly tied to government-run Social Security.

Now that Social Security is running a perennial deficit and is facing insolvency, conservatives have an opportunity to reverse one of the most flagrant violations of our property rights, by offering workers the option to opt out of the Madoff-style program.

As the unfunded liability for Social Security balloons to $21.4 trillion over the next 20 years, it is painfully obvious to young workers that they will not enjoy much retirement security, if any, from the government program.  Democrats are totally apathetic to their grim future; they will be long retired by then, enjoying the full array of government benefits that they secured for themselves.  Meanwhile, they would rather demagogue the issue, using fallacious scare tactics to stir up current retirees.  Accordingly, we should harness the Democrats’ Mediscare demagoguery towards seniors, and direct it towards younger Americans.  If Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan will push granny over the hill, the status quo of the Democrats’ Ponzi scheme will prevent the grandchild from making it up the hill.

With high unemployment and polls showing a precipitous drop in support for Obama among young voters, now is the time to reach out to those voters.  Congressman Pete Sessions is proposing the SAFE ACT (HR 2109), which would allow younger workers to control all of their retirement savings.  Here are some of the key details of the proposal:

  • Every American would be able to opt out of the current system and direct the full 6.2% of payroll taxes to a personal retirement account beginning January 1, 2012.  Conversely, anyone who wishes to remain in the current system would not be affected.  An employee who chooses to opt for the SAFE account can switch back to the current system during the first five years after opting out.
  • After 15 years of the bill’s enactment, employers would be able to contribute “their share” of payroll taxes to the employee’s SAFE account.
  • Self-employed individuals would be able to divert the full amount of their payroll taxes to a SAFE account.
  • The SAFE accounts would be tax free and any cash contributions would be tax deductible.   Also, all post-retirement distributions from the account would be tax free.  Any pre-retirement distributions would be taxed as income.
  • Upon the death of the account beneficiary, irrespective of his/her age, the inheritors of the estate will be able to assume full ownership of the account.

. . .

So, young Obama zombies with skulls full of mush; with whom do you trust your retirement security: your bank account or Obama’s defunct ATM?  How about Bernie Madoff?

A secular case against “same-sex marriage”

Roxeanne asked socially conservative bloggers to write a non-religious case against same-sex marriage.  I’ll make a few points here, but the good news is that the Wintery Knight did a more thorough and masterful job in A secular case against gay marriage.  I highly encourage you to read and bookmark it.  The case against oxymoronic “same-sex marriage” is not that hard to make, but sadly too many conservatives don’t prepare themselves and fall prey to soundbites.  It is their fault that places like New York voted this in.

First, my basic points.  These are not complicated, folks.

1. By nature and design, one man / one woman unions produce the next generation.  That is why the government is involved in these relationships.  Just because some marriages don’t produce children doesn’t mean that the government doesn’t have an interest in encouraging the relationships that by nature and design do produce children.

2. Only one man / one woman unions can provide a mother and a father to a child, the ideal for any child.  This should be self-evident to any observer.

3.  “Marriage” was a word created to describe these unions.  LGBTQX people have a right to live as they choose, but they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for society.  Please note: These people are welcome to get “married” in any number of apostate churches.  They can set up house and live together.  We are just saying that the government has no reason to affirm or regulate these relationships.

4. Saying that “marriage” applies to gays and lesbians isn’t a little different than the real definition of “a union of  a man and a woman,” it is the opposite.  It is saying that marriage is not just the union of a man and a woman, it is the union of anything we want it to be.

5. The arguments used to justify “same-sex marriage” support polygamy as well.  It isn’t a slippery slope argument, it is a cliff argument, where all the reasoning is already in place to justify other perversions of marriage.

6. “Same-sex marriage” has already impacted religious freedoms and will continue to do so.  This isn’t a religious argument per se, in that it isn’t saying “The Bible says ____,” but it is an argument about how government recognition of these unions pits the government against religions.

This is very important.  As noted here, the bill specifically says that “marriage is a fundamental human right,” but then goes on to give exemptions to religious organizations for having to recognize that right.  But how can that be?  What religion could have its views trump other fundamental human rights and justify, say, slavery in the U.S.?

Prediction: The law will stand but the religious exemption will get cut out.  The people who held out for the exemption behaved foolishly and naively.

7. These unions are bad for kids in many ways.  They inevitably result in 4-5 year olds being told how “normal” these relationships are.  They lead to adoption agencies closing rather than have to place children with gay or lesbian couples (that is premeditated child abuse).

8. Common sound bites about hospital visitation, estate taxes, etc. can be dealt with without undermining marriage.  For example, estate taxes are ghoulish.  You do not want the government to profit when you die!  So abolish them for everyone.

9. Don’t let them get away with sloppy slogans about “rights.”  They have the same rights as everyone else: To marry someone of the opposite sex.  I’m not trying to be cute here, I’m just pointing out that if they don’t want to exercise that right we don’t have to make up a new one for them.

10. Don’t let them get away with sloppy slogans about loving whomever they want.  Again, no one is saying they can’t love anyone they like.  Sadly, sound bites like that are repeated ad nauseum by people who should know better.We’re the ones staying out of their relationships.  They are the ones asking for government affirmation.

11. Don’t let them get away with comparisons to interracial marriages.  Skin color is moral neutral.  Sexual behavior is not.

Summary: While LGBTQX people are free to have these relationships, we are merely saying the government has no need to affirm or validate them.

—–

Aside from the secular arguments, if anyone wants to know what God says about marriage and these relationships, it is very clear.  He invented marriage.  Any church that disagrees with this isn’t a church, it is an organization trying to destroy the real church (that is, those who authentically follow Jesus).  They are actually doing you a favor in being so obvious.  Churches that promote same-sex unions are merely wolves in sheep’s clothing who took off the sheep’s clothing.  Hey, maybe they were getting too warm or something.

  • 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
  • 100% of the verses referring to God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
  • 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
  • 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.

—–

Now, a few tidbits from Wintery’s piece (again, read it all!).  There are sources for all of this.   Emphasis added.

Claim: about 58% of traditional marriages last longer than 20 years.

Claim: about 5% of same-sex unions last longer than 20 years.

Claim: 85% of married women and 75.5% of married men report being faithful to their spouses. For homosexual males, the number is 4.5%

Look at the rates of violence in these relationships!  If these were anything other than politically correct relationships the media would be all over this.  I’d wager that these are a far bigger problem than “hate crimes.”

Rates of intimate partner violence

Intimate Partner Violence

Any advocates of SSM should be required to read these links:

Here are a few more examples of this infringement on civil society and business:

Consider the health problems it causes, such as 40+ times higher rates of HIV and syphilis for gay men.  Again, if this was any other group it would be non-stop news.   But it doesn’t fit with the mainstream media messaging.

Students who report being gay or bisexual are more likely than heterosexual students to engage in unhealthy risk behaviors such as tobacco use, alcohol and other drug use, sexual risk behaviors, suicidal behaviors, and violence, according to a study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Note that the previous facts were about students, yet the schools go overboard encouraging this behavior in kids.

The study reported: “the prevalence among gay or lesbian students was higher than the prevalence among heterosexual students for a median of 63.8% of all the risk behaviors measured, and the prevalence among bisexual students was higher than the prevalence among heterosexual students for a median of 76.0% of all the risk behaviors measured.”

But they are “born that way,” right?

The footnotes she mentions are in the original article. That article also debunks the “gay gene” myth using identical twin studies, which show that only 10-11% of identical twins have the same sexual orientation.

What?!  You mean Lady Gaga was wrong?!

Another reason to move to Texas!

The title says it all: Texas requires losing parties of frivolous lawsuits to pay their own costs.  This has been needed for a long time.  It will eliminate waste, reduce stress for innocent people and give even more incentive for people to create businesses and jobs in Texas.  This is the kind of approach that led Texas to add more jobs over 5 years than the other 49 states combined.

From the Wall Street Journal:

This week, Texas Gov. Rick Perry signed a law that will help free Lone Star State businesses from the threat of frivolous lawsuits by enacting “loser-pays” tort reform. Prior to the legislation, litigants faced a no-lose situation, while defendants stood to lose everything—even for the most outrageous, bizarre and wrongful accusations.

Even when defendants won, the legal fees associated with protecting themselves could add up to tens of thousands of dollars. As a result, many pre-emptively settled out of court, as the settlement payment would be less than the legal fees. Under Texas’s new legislation, however, litigants will be forced to pay for the defendant’s attorney fees if the case is determined groundless. This will compel would-be litigants to consider the practicality of their complaint before taking legal action, and it will protect defendants from the dire financial impact of frivolous cases.

The Texas legislation should serve as a national model, especially as we recover from the Great Recession. America has the most expensive civil-justice system in the world, costing $255 billion in 2008, or nearly 2% of gross domestic product, according to a 2009 study by the firm Towers Perrin (now Towers Watson). That’s more than twice as much as any other industrialized nation as a percent of the GDP.

From the commentary by the Wintery Knight:

One of the reasons why we are in an economic mess is because we have not reined in the excesses of the trial lawyers. And the Democrats will never be able to rein them in because they are the core of the Democrat party, along with labor unions, teacher unions, word-smithing academics, criminals, welfare recipients and Hollywood celebrities. The sheltered, non-productive segments of society, who have never had to run a business or make payroll.

He forgot to mention the abortion and LGBTQ lobbies, but otherwise it was very accurate.

Arizona bans racial & sex-selection abortions

Great news, and great tactics by the pro-lifers who made this happen.  Some cynics think elections don’t count when it comes to the issue of life.

Pro-life Republican Governor Jan Brewer has signed into law Arizona’s ban on racial and sex-selective abortion, a law which is a national first. Lawmakers are also sending to the governor another bill that bans “telemed” abortions as part of an expanded informed consent law.

. . .

The law requires doctors to obtain an affidavit that the abortion is not sought for racial or sex-selective reasons.

. . .

The measure was opposed by Planned Parenthood. “This law creates a highly unusual requirement that women state publicly their reason for choosing to terminate a pregnancy — a private decision they already made with their physician, partner and family,” Bryan Howard, chief executive officer of Planned Parenthood of Arizona, said in a statement.

via Arizona Gov. signs nation’s first ban on racial/sex-selective abortions | LifeSiteNews.com.

I’m not naive.  I know Planned Parenthood will coach people to check the “Other” box on the “Why do you want to destroy this unwanted human being?” question.  And you can trust PP to keep secrets: They won’t even let you know if your 13 yr. old daughter is pregnant by a 25 yr. old guy.  They hate this law because it points to the humanity of the unborn.  These aren’t blobs of tissue or parasites, these are human beings whose DNA had their features — including sex and skin color — mapped out at conception.

This type of law may help those coerced to have these abortions.  Gender-selection abortions are the ultimate misogyny, killing females for the sole reason that they are female.  They are very common in Indian and Chinese cultures (those countries have gender imbalances numbering in the tens of millions).

The truth sounds like hate to those that hate the truth

And false teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie really hates the truth.  See United Church of Christ Leaders Hail Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crime Prevention Act.

Matthew Shepard wasn’t killed by hate speech or because he was gay. Even if he was killed for being gay it wasn’t like his killers just got back from a Focus on the Family “Love won out” conference.   He was killed by thugs.

In a major irony that will be lost on fakes like Chuck, I support stronger penalties for the killers of Shepard and Byrd than they do.  I’m OK with the death penalty but they oppose it.  I guess they must hate gays and blacks, eh?

So we don’t need “hate crime / hate speech” legislation at all.  Those laws are just trojan horses designed to silence opposing views and especially religious speech.  It is a double assault on the 1st Amendment rights of Christians.  Chuck doesn’t mind because he never teaches anything from the Bible (whether accurately or not) that the world would find unpopular.

Yes, some people are illegal

Jim “the Gospel is all about wealth redistribution” Wallis is good at disingenuous sound bites, such as his faux centrist bumper sticker saying that “God is not a Republican . . . or a Democrat” while he and his group hold extreme Left views.

Now he is back to the No One is “Illegal” bit.  When people are in a country illegally they are illegal aliens.  Word-smithing games do nothing to disprove that.  Wallis should check out Romans 13 and start obeying God.  Protecting our borders does not violate God’s laws so Christians should obey the law of the land.

Illegal immigration = the ultimate outsourcing

Think about it.  The real objection to companies shifting jobs to other countries isn’t the location of the jobs, it is the move from U.S. citizens*  to non-U.S. citizens.  If the jobs went overseas to U.S. citizens I doubt people would object.

So what happens with illegal immigration?  Non-U.S. citizens take the jobs of U.S. citizens and consume far more resources than they contribute.  At least the Indian guy on the support desk isn’t demanding that you fund the medical and education costs for him and his family, and he isn’t committing crimes in this country.

The great irony is that open border Leftists like Jim “the Gospel is all about wealth redistribution” Wallis are the ones who claim to care about the poor.  But the illegal immigrants drive down the wages of the poor in this country and take many of their jobs.  What kind of “social justice” is that?

If anyone objects to outsourcing of U.S. jobs – and most people seem to — do a consistency check and ask them their views on illegal immigration.  Be sure to gently point out any inconsistencies.

*or guests in the U.S. — i.e., people who have the proper immigration approvals