Skip to comments.Liberal Democrats grow increasingly desperate
Posted on 03/30/2005 7:27:52 PM PST by CHARLITE
For those who look closely, signs of desperation on the part of liberal Democrats are everywhere. I am not sure when they finally came to the realization people are figuring out what they are really about, but they know it's happening. And they are afraid of the truth more than anything. They are so afraid they will say and do anything to blur reality so the average person won't know their positions are baseless.
For instance, Rep. John T. Salazar, D-Colo., said last week: "Creating private accounts will only hasten the demise of Social Security, by draining trillions of dollars from the Social Security trust fund." And: "We cannot forget the lessons that we learned from Enron: A retirement that relied on the stock market is simply not a secure benefit." Enron?
Nancy Pelosi got into the act through a spokeswoman who stated, "We want to show that Democrats are unified against raiding the trust fund to create private accounts." Good grief. Someone needs to let these people know there is no trust fund, just a pile of IOUs the U.S. Treasury will have to start making good on in about a dozen years.
This is a major problem, but not one the liberals want to discuss as an issue. After all, it was their party that began raiding it in the 1960s when they controlled both Congress and the presidency.
Another is the deficit. Remember during the last election cycle how the deficit was out of control and the liberals were calling on President Bush to cut spending by giving up on the war for world liberty? They didn't call for cuts anywhere else because while they were in charge of the government they took most of the $2.6 trillion now being spent off the table for discussion or reduction.
Unless Congress reopens those programs the fact is there is less than $400 billion available to cut. And most of those line items are either in the Department of Defense or the Department of Commerce. This makes sense for liberals, but it left our country exposed to terrorists and our economy vulnerable to foreign competition from government subsidized conglomerates.
Liberals refuse to take credit for the consequences of their good works, of course. They deny there is even a problem, as if by some magical mantra all of the IOUs they have saddled our country with during their 60-year reign will magically be made good.
Their latest effort in this regard is based upon defining as "principal" to our society the sanctity of the Social Security tax. Don't let them fool you, that is all it is, a tax. The Supreme Court has ruled on two separate occasions there is no social contract or right to benefits of any kind. That is why Congress was able to loot the nonexistent trust fund for new social engineering programs like the Great Society.
But even with all factual evidence to the contrary, liberals continue their mantra and the true believers, who rarely if ever allow an opposing idea to muddy their thinking, repeat the falsehoods.
And the biggest disinformation programs originate in those hallowed halls of the U.S. Senate, and from our own Senator, Harry Reid, who is currently trying to conjure up another yet to be demonstrated Constitutional argument allowing the Democrats to withhold full Senate votes on judicial nominees.
You see, the greatest secret the liberals have is the absolute necessity of continuing the half-century old practice of packing our court system with judges who make rulings not based on the actual words written in our national and state constitutions. Their causes are based upon these liberal judges being able to write laws through decisions the liberals cannot get passed through the legislative process.
This one issue is so critical to their basic power structure that Sen. Reid has chosen to continue the unconstitutional act of preventing judges from even receiving a yes or no vote if they might rule that nowhere in the Constitution do the words "separation of church and state" reside.
After all, this same judge might also question where many of the "rights" granted felons, prisoners, special interests and illegal aliens are to be found. And worst of all, a judge who takes the time to read the limitations on the federal government might question what has happened to second, third, fourth, ninth and 10th Amendments to our Constitution over the last 50 years.
This possibility scares the living daylights out of liberals. They know if the people were given the opportunity to vote on these issues, liberals lose. This is why Sen. Reid has threatened to shut down the government if they are denied their judicial source of power. And I hope he does.
When the people of America see what liberals really stand for, it may be possible for us to finally return to the actual written words in the Constitution providing for a fiscally disciplined, limited government which understands its number one job is providing for the common defense of the people.
This may in fact, be the only way for future generations to know the value of liberty not granted by government, but bestowed upon all people by our Creator.
Little writes from Pahrump. His column, "The Other Side," appears here on Wednesdays.
comment: e-mail firstname.lastname@example.org
TRUST FUND .. THERE'S A TRUST FUND .. when did that happen ..??
Hmmmmm? I think the dems are smokin' sumthin!
I would like him to go and show me physically the money in the Social Security Trust Fund. IT AIN'T THERE! All that he will find is stacks and stacks and stacks and stacks and stacks of papers, and they will all say the same thing: I O U.
So the "draining" has already started and is complete. There ain't no bucks in der, bruddah.
Okay. Instead of the stock market, what if the private account owners had the option of investing in Treasury securities? Would it be safe then?
Nope. Individuals would own the accounts then. They would not forfeit them in the event of an untimely early death. No premature asset forfeiture. We can't have the peasantry attain useful assets.
This month I decided to run my own personal finances just like the government runs the Social Security Trust Fund.
So I took every penny I earned in March and spent it. Then I wrote myself an IOU and put it in a safe deposit "lockbox.". When it comes time to pay my mortgage next week, I'll simply take one of the IOUs and endorse it over to the bank. I intend to the same thing for all the rest of my bills as well.
As Adam Smith said, "What is prudence in the conduct of every private family can scarce be folly in that of a great kingdom." Since A=A, I figure the reverse must be true as well. And since our government obviously would only do the prudent thing, I figure I can't go wrong doing this.
Life is good.
can you loan me a fiver? ;'}
Good plan,if you hate your house. :^)
Well .. good luck Maceman .. I do hope you have Plan B when it comes time to pay the mortgage .. but I thought the govt just borrowed more money ..?? That might work!
Good luck though! LOL!!
Art Bell write this one?
"When the people of America see what liberals really stand for, it may be possible for us to finally return to the actual written words in the Constitution providing for a fiscally disciplined, limited government"
A fiscally disciplined government? We're going to need to vote out many congressmen from BOTH sides of the aisle for this to happen.
That money is gone, never to be seen again. To keep pretending it is there and that someday we will have to pay it back is baloney. We will never be able to pay it back. There is no mecahnism to do so. Just trash that debt we owe to ourselves and admit it was all a sham. Then pay current recipients out of an FICA tax adjusted for that and stop pretending to build some mythical surplus that just disappears down a rat hole.
First the democrats have to be eliminated. This removes the cover for RINOs who use the existence of democrats to cling onto their political existence.
Eliminate the national democrat party and the voices for fiscal responsibility become that much easier to hear.
Social Security is a tragedy and a travesty. What could be more "risky" than gambling that you won't die prior to retirement, and therefore, forfeit your SS to the government(the tragedy), or gambling that you will live to age 77, at which time your return on your money is a whopping 2%? (this is the travesty).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.