Jump to content
Sane

Lets Make Sure we are CLEAR

Recommended Posts

On 6/6/2019 at 7:31 PM, Sane said:

Think about what you just said.  Really think about it.  We all have the right to free speech.  *1. That doesn't mean the person talking is telling you the truth.  *2. Rush spread lies and intentionally misrepresents facts to keep you emotional and free for fact.  *3. Attack the legitimate news which has standards they have to live by.  *4. That is the ploy of the con artist.  *5. Don't listen to the real press listen to me.  You're the lost.

Uh huh, really thought about it.....

*1. .......Amazing you......

......yikes.....

*2.  ....your opinion....wrong as it is.....

*3. .....standards?......are you sane?......(no pun intended)

*4. ...you're a horrible con artist....

*5.  .....you might be a better comedian.....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where did Sane go?    I thought he was going to school me on finance and social security?    Guess not.   B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/31/2019 at 11:39 PM, BeAChooser said:


"That is the most you will ever pay."   That seems to me to be a promise.    One might think a contractual promise.    But it's a promise that was soon broken during JFK's administration.     Some folks are now being forced to *contribute* ten times that amount in inflation adjusted dollars.   Call it LIE #1.    
 
The pamphlet also states that "The checks will come to you as a right. You will get them regardless of the amount of property or income you may have."  But what it doesn't say is that above a certain amount, SS payments are taxed.  So although you may get a check, the government may take more than 30% of it back from you ... because you have too much income.  LIE #2.
 
And politicians on both sides of the aisle are now pushing the notion of making SS even more means tested ... so the wealthy contributors pay more and receive less ( http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2012/10/09/mitt-romney-and-president-obama-see-means-testing-key-way-entitlement-reform-but-differ-method/Dnogt4axHflREPy5AWDKnI/story.html ).  The wealthy obviously have no "right" to the money they contributed.    So that pamplet lied yet again. LIE #3.
  
Next, the pamphlet states "The law also creates an "Old-Age Reserve Account" in the United States Treasury, and Congress is authorized to put into this reserve account each year enough money to provide for the monthly payments you and other workers are to receive when you are 65."   But they never establish anything where the money that was collected from participants was actually placed in it.  As a result, EVERY dollar now paid out comes from taxes on CURRENT participants.   That's was LIE #4.    
 
The pamphlet also says "Meanwhile, the Old-Age Reserve fund in the United States Treasury is drawing interest, and the Government guarantees it will never earn less than 3 percent”. Yet the SSA website states this ( https://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html#a0=2 ) "What interest rate do the trust funds' assets earn? The rate of interest on special issues is determined by a formula enacted in 1960.  ... snip ... The numeric average of the 12 monthly interest rates for 2013 was 1.875 percent."  So that a LIE, too.  LIE #5
 
And the pamphlet ends with this bold declaration  “What you get from the Government plan will always be more than you have paid in taxes and usually more than you can get for yourself by putting away the same amount of money each week in some other way”. But I've proven on countless threads  that’s ABSOLUTELY false.   So that’s LIE #6.   
 
Six LIES just in one of the pamphlets used to sell SS to an unwitting populace by Fabian Socialists.

 

And how about these lies by President Franklin Roosevelt (FDR) himself?
 
In 1936, during a speech on Social Security, Republican presidential candidate Alfred Landon charged that it was as if a father took deductions from his children’s wages to invest for their old age, “invested” them in “his own IOU,” and spent the money, leaving his kids nothing but those IOUs. Hence Social Security’s forced savings were “a cruel hoax.”   FDR responded to this charge with another outright LIE. He said that Social Security tax dollars “are held in a Government trust fund solely for the social security of the workers.”   There was and never has been a trust fund. The truth is that the notion that there is a “trust fund” was a public relations ploy ... as Social Security Board Chairman Arthur Altimeyer admitted “to allay the unwarranted fears of some people who thought Uncle Sam was embezzling the money”.  LIE #7.
 
Here's a statement from FDR's 7th Fireside Chat on April 28, 1935:
 
http://millercenter.org/president/speeches/speech-3304
 



Can you or any leftist here at LF tell us how SS has reduced unemployment, as promised, as opposed to people just saving their own money over the years and living on their assets, as in the alternative example that I posted countless times?  Hmmmmmmm? The truth is that SS has increased unemployment by reducing economic growth.   So call this LIE #8.
 
Second, show us how SS has worked to prevent government deficits?   Indeed, SS is now a large part of America's deficit problem.  To try and hide that problem, the government even recently changed the definition of National Debt so that it no longer includes SS.   They took it off the books.   Now they call what used to be termed Public Debt, the National Debt.   And they've dishonestly claimed, based on that changed definition, that we were running a surplus during Clinton’s term.  That’s LIE #9.
 
Continuing from the 7th Fireside Chat:
 


As you can see, FDR tried to sell SS as a "pension".  But SS is not a "pension" by any conventional definition.   Indeed, the Social Security Administration calls SS "insurance", which is very different from a "pension".  Pensions and insurance are administered and funded differently, and their benefits are designed for different people.   Even the New York Times has acknowledged that SS isn't a pension, but that it was sold as one: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/05/business/05norris.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 "Is Social Security a pension plan?  No, but it was sold to the public in the 1930s as if it were one ...".    Even CBS recognized it was not a pension when it stated ( http://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-rich-retirement-how-to-get-the-biggest-social-security-check/) "First, people need to realize that Social Security is not a pension plan -- or even a retirement program." So that LIE #10.  
 
And LIE #11 is that SS is insurance.   It's not that either, not by any conventional definition of insurance.   What SS is, is an intergenerational welfare program.
 
And there are two other false promises in the statement by FDR above. One is that SS will move seniors out of the workforce to give the younger generation more work opportunities, and give all greater security.  But what has the SSA done since it's inception?  It has repeatedly raised the age at which one can get that "pension", forcing now financially strapped seniors (because they weren't allowed to put SS payments  in clearly better investments) to keep working.  And it is preventing the younger generation from keeping and investing their own money  ... leading to more, not less, feelings of insecurity in the younger generation.  The harsh truth is that most young people today do not expect to see a dime of what they are paying into SS.  They see the program only in terms of taking money from them to give to old people.  And the old people have increased insecurity because they don't actually own anything.  Many are now completely dependent on the whims of politicians who talk of reducing benefits to keep the program from totally collapsing. So those are LIES #12 and #13.
 
And I’m not done. There are plenty more promises that FDR broke … more lies he told to sell SS to a unwitting nation.
 
For example, FDR told a friendly audience ( http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15212 ) in 1936 that "we have begun to build a system of old-age pensions" (again, falsely calling SS a pension when his committee was investigating insurance).   Later in the same speech he said to this audience of the faithful that SS was insurance (again, false).  But more important, he told the audience that the premiums collected for SS "insurance" would be "held by the Government solely for the benefit of the worker in his old age.".  He said "in effect, we have set up a savings account for the old age of the worker".   That was a LIE, then and now.   The money collected was never held in any savings account, nor "solely" for the worker.  LIES #14 and #15.
 
Furthermore, FDR went on to say this, attacking opponents of the program as unpatriotic:  "These propagandists with allies whom I do not have to describe to you who know them- are driven in their desperation to the contemptible, unpatriotic suggestion that some future Congress will steal these insurance funds for other purposes. If they really believe what they say in the pay envelopes, they have no confidence in our form of government or its permanence. It might be well for them to move to some other Nation in which they have greater faith.". Isn't it ironic that those "propagandists" we're right? Because that's exactly what a future Congress did.  So call that LIE #16.
 

SIXTEEN LIES ... without even breaking a sweat.


The cold hard truth is that Social Security was sold on a foundation of lies that made people think they'd have a contract with the government.  
 
Anyone defending SS today needs to first deal with the reality of all these lies, *sane*.   Can you?  

 

Can you explain why SS is such a great thing when they had to sell it on a mountain of lies?

 

Hmmmmm?  

 

Answer that question and then I'll next show using cold hard numbers how bad SS has been for it's contributors.  How they've been cheated.   B)

Took me a minuet to find this thing.  We chatted a lot that day.

 

A lot of what you claim is a lie were actions taken by politicians several years later.  So those don't qualify as FDR lying.  You should be pissed at the politicians that treated the plan as little piggy bank over the years.  FDR being a little short sighted on future congresses.  In that instance I'd say he was just pushing his plan forward as times change but people don't.  Both parties have robbed that thing blind, and if the original intent to set up the fund would have been put into effect.  We wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

Can you or any leftist here at LF tell us how SS has reduced unemployment, as promised, as opposed to people just saving their own money over the years and living on their assets, as in the alternative example that I posted countless times?  Hmmmmmmm? The truth is that SS has increased unemployment by reducing economic growth.   So call this LIE #8.
 A) Any ingestion of capital into the economy will spur economic growth.  Be a tax cut or in this instance.  It was giving funds to seniors who at that point in time did not have funds. 

 Being that it was the great depression that wasn't a bad idea.

 

Second, show us how SS has worked to prevent government deficits?   Indeed, SS is now a large part of America's deficit problem.  To try and hide that problem, the government even recently changed the definition of National Debt so that it no longer includes SS.   They took it off the books.   Now they call what used to be termed Public Debt, the National Debt.   And they've dishonestly claimed, based on that changed definition, that we were running a surplus during Clinton’s term.  That’s LIE #9.

A) Your guess is as good as mine.  I suppose at the time they were trying to make the Supply Side Economics argument that this will spur economic growth.  Which will lead to greater tax revenues.  

 

Your 10 & 11 are  really just semantics.  You're angry so you are looking to knock it down wherever possible.  The word "Insurance" is used to give people faith that these funds will be there for them.  (Now if you want to argue that since the original investment component was never initiated, and no politician had since made any attempt to do so.  That there will come a point were those funds wont be there.  I'll agree with you 100%.)

 

For your 12 &13 I think you need to remember that at that point in time this would have allowed older workers a way to retire.  I have no doubt that took place.  I don't think that qualifies as a lie because at the it would be true.  

 

Your 14 and 15 really do get back to semantics because you're mad.  

 

Big Picture - in 1936 this on the surface was a good idea.  Yes the long term of giving congress the ability to alter the plan did not show much forethought.  This will make you cringe, but the only way this could have been effective.  Constitutional amendment.  Both parties would have figured out how to steal from it even in that instance, but at least the investment part could have been forced.  At the time I'm sure it did give older workers who couldn't retire the funds they needed to retire.  That did open up positions for younger workers who were no longer unemployed.  That will create new income that will be spent and spur the economy.  The war was the major driver that did that.  Government spending.  

If your argument is it was ill conceived and poorly executed.  I agree with you.  I think the original intent was a good idea and here's why.  If they had set up an investment account and let it be.  We wouldn't have this issue now with the deficit.  Blame both sides of the isle over all the decades for that one.

It is irresponsible to not save for retirement, but if you suddenly find yourself there.  A small amount that will at least let you survive is a good idea.  If you live a long time.  Well you are covered so to that end the idea of this being a form of "insurance".  Meaning you can rely on it.  Is yet really not a bad idea.  The problem is the politicians.  The lack of planning and execution.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Sane said:

A lot of what you claim is a lie were actions taken by politicians several years later.  So those don't qualify as FDR lying.

 

False.    If FDR made promises and then didn’t do whatever was necessary to try to ensure that what he said was true, then he was being dishonest ... lying.   He was a life-long politician, so if he said things he knew were unlikely to be true because of the nature of politicians (especially those on his side of the political aisle), he was lying.


Take for instance, the statement "that is the most you will ever pay."  What did he do to ensure that was true?   Anything?   Anything at all?  I bet you can’t point out anything he actually did to ensure that.    And if he didn't, then he knowingly lying to the public, Sane.   Because, after all, he knew exactly what politicians were like.  He knew they were likely to break that promise … especially his party, which wanted even back then to provide everything to everybody for free.    He sold the program based on a LIE.   LIE #1    If he’d told the public the truth about that … if he’d told them that future politicians might raise the limits so that instead of paying 1 or 2% of income as promised, they’d be paying 10% or 15% of their income into Social Security, they’d have said NO WAY JOSE.    So he lied to them in order to get the program passed.   He lied, Sane, and everyone here knows it but you and the left, whose agenda, not coincidently, has benefited from that lie.   And that’s your real motivation for defending him here.   Defending the overall socialist agenda,   At least be honest about THAT.


Now consider what I called LIE #2 … that "the checks will come to you as a right. You will get them regardless of the amount of property or income you may have."   That was said at a time when he was President in order to sell the program.   But he had to have known there was nothing in the law or regulations that would make it a “right”.  Nothing in the Constitution that would make it a "right".    He knew that the government that giveth could just as easily not giveth.    Show me where he or the SSA when selling the program told the public that?  Was honest with them about the possibility of duplicity by future Presidents?    Show me anything FDR or the SSA did to prevent the program from being means tested or to prevent future politicians from adjusting the income at which SS had to be paid?    You won’t be able to because they took no precautions.  None at all.   Which means he knowingly lied, Sane.
 

Now I would agree that LIE #3 is on future politicians, but they were only able to do what they did because FDR never did anything to make SS checks a real “right” ... to ensure that the contributor actually owned his contributions.     The law could have been written that way, but it wasn't.     But, for purposes of this discussion, I will agree that LIE #2 and LIE #3 are the basically the same lie since they both pertain to the issue of “right”.   So good for you.  You’ve reduced the total number of lies by FDR and his administration to 15.


But I stand by my assertion that the pamphlet stating ”the law also creates an "Old-Age Reserve Account" in the United States Treasury, and Congress is authorized to put into this reserve account each year enough money to provide for the monthly payments you and other workers are to receive when you are 65" is LIE ... now LIE #3 (for purpose of proper accounting).   And the responsibility for that lie is all on FDR and his administration, because they never established a reserve account … an “Old-Age Reserve” trust or fund, where the money that was collected would be held for participants.  And FDR had 10 years to do that after the SS Act passed.    He never even tried, so clearly that wasn't part of the plan.  Meaning that FDR and the SSA LIED about that just to get the program passed.  


Next, the pamphlet saying  "the Old-Age Reserve fund in the United States Treasury is drawing interest, and the Government guarantees it will never earn less than 3 percent” was also a LIE by FDR and his cronies, not some future politician.   You show me ANYTHING they enacted as law or wrote in regulation or even tried to put in place to “guarantee” contributors would earn at least "3 percent" on their contributions.   ANYTHING.   If you can’t, then FDR and his crew were clearly lying to sell the program to an unwitting public.     They clearly never had any intention of setting up something to guarantee that sort of return.   It was just a lie, LIE #4, by current accounting.  In fact, to make matter worse, remember that when SS was first established, Ida Mae Fuller, the first Social Security recipient, got 462 times what she and her employer together paid in “contributions”.  That's some return on investment and the Social Security website even boasted about that (http://www.ssa.gov/history/idapayroll.html) as a selling point, knowing full well that others would not get that sort of return.  THEY KNOWINGLY LIED TO THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE SORT OF RETURNS THEY WOULD BE GETTING.   And I think it was done to keep the public complacent and supporting during those first few critical years when SS could have been repealed or fixed without causing too much havoc.   Once they got past that grace period, the Fabians knew it would be almost impossible to repeal or even fix.    Stuart Chase said as much in his books on what they planned.    Just as Obama and his cronies knew that if Obamacare could survive long enough, it would be cast in concrete.  Too bad we didn't have the equivalent of Trump and the internet after FDR, and even with them going back has been next to impossible.


The pamphlet, written by FDR and his henchmen, not other politicians, ends with the declaration  “What you get from the Government plan will always be more than you have paid in taxes and usually more than you can get for yourself by putting away the same amount of money each week in some other way”.  Again, show me where they established ANYTHING in law or regulation to guarantee that … or even try to guarantee that, Sane.  I bet you can’t and if you can’t, then it was clearly another LIE meant to sell the program.   LIE #5.  

 
FDR's dishonest statement that Alfred Landon’s criticism of the program wasn’t true is also entirely on FDR.   He said that Social Security tax dollars “are held in a Government trust fund solely for the social security of the workers.”   I’ll repeat again … there was and never has been a trust fund.   Because FDR and his cronies did NOTHING to set one up.   It was, as I said, a public relations ploy ... as Social Security Board Chairman Arthur Altimeyer admitted “to allay the unwarranted fears of some people who thought Uncle Sam was embezzling the money”.   It was LIE #6 but the new count.


So, six of the first seven lies I identified are all on FDR, not some future President.   One was just a duplicate and not on some future President either.   Proving that your statement was false and that your spinning for all your worth, now that you've returned to the thread.    But it’s not going to work, *mr finance”.   Now let’s look at the next 8 lies that I had listed.


Calling it LIE #8, I challenged you to show how SS reduced unemployment, as promised by FDR, and asserted that SS has increased unemployment by reducing economic growth.  Your unsupported response that “any ingestion of capital into the economy will spur economic growth” is a LIE … a lie that is constantly promoted by leftists.  It was a lie much discussed when Bush Sr and Obama decided to massively stimulate the economy.   It's a lie in this case because when the government taxes, and then gives to *retired* seniors some portion of those taxes, that does NOT spur growth because the people that money was taken from would have spent or invested it themselves.   There is no net gain.  There’s a net loss.   


Hoover almost doubled government spending with the largest public works projects in history to that point in time.  Yet by the time he left office, the unemployment rate was close to 25%.  Clearly, stimulus spending and government interference did not work.  FDR campaigned in 1932 by attacking Hoover's spending as wasteful and unwise.  The Democratic Party platform recommended “an immediate and drastic reduction of governmental expenditures”.   Then one elected, doubled down on Hoover's spending.   Yet, from 1934 to 1940, the median annual unemployment rate was 17.2 percent.   At no point during the 1930s did unemployment go below 14 percent, which past recessions and depressions prove would have happened anyway.   FDR tripled taxes during the Great Depression, from $1.6 billion in 1933 to $5.3 billion in 1940 ... well before WW2 began.    Despite all those taxes and the government spending that ensued, unemployment remained VERY high … at depression levels.  FDR's own treasury secretary. Henry Morgenthau, admitted "We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. … snip … I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started .... and an enormous debt to boot!".    Handing money to seniors is no different, Sane.   It doesn't stimulate the economy over and above what it would have done anyway.

   
Here’s why …


https://reason.com/2009/01/12/practical-reasons-why-stimulus/

 

Quote

 

1. Stimulus packages frequently misdirect national resources


Stimulus spending draws economic activity to short-term projects (such as expanding a road or fixing a school roof) but as a result pulls resources away from investment in sustainable economic projects (based on what the market demands). The federal government, with its limited knowledge and lack of price signals represented in a market economy, can't always know how best to spend money.


2. Stimulus packages don't increase aggregate consumption


In order to inject money into the economy, the government has to take money out of the economy. Whether by increasing taxes, national debt, or printing the money (growing inflation), the government has to damage long-term wealth in order to provide short-term economic activity.


3. Stimulus packages don't create sustainable jobs


Infrastructure projects create jobs because they require workers. You need construction workers to build a road, but once the project is complete, the jobs go away. The contracting firm that used stimulus money to hire workers no longer can afford to keep them on staff. Employment is not sustained. As a result, the worker, while employed for a short-term period of time, is not able to seek long-term employment. The worker, while likely grateful for the short-term job, is still not sure if, or when, the next job will come. As a result, they will still likely limit their spending, thus reducing consumption and overall economic growth.


4. Stimulus packages increase national debt or cause rapid inflation


In order to pay for any stimulus—whether building roads or building schools—the government has to pass the cost on to future generations. The national debt more than doubled under New Deal spending during the Great Depression. While there may be some short-term economic activity, the weight of the national debt will limit economic growth in the future. Alternatively, if the government printed money to avoid debt, inflation would grow, also hindering sustained economic growth.


5. Stimulus packages are pork-laden and caught up in federal bureaucracy


Large government spending programs fall victim to pork spending. The U.S. Conference of Mayors recently submitted over 11,000 projects that are "ready to go" on their national infrastructure wish list. Duck ponds, dog parks, sports parks, tennis centers, and swimming pools were all part of the infrastructure stimulus that the mayors say is "needed" for economic recovery. Private firms and industries nationwide will line up to try and get their piece of the federal money, regardless of whether this will result in the most efficient use of tax dollars. The rent seeking behavior will deter politicians, under pressure from donors and constituents, from putting the money to the most effective use.


Tax cuts are a much better way to stimulate economic growth. Allowing companies to keep more of their revenue is an incentive to create more wealth and thus promote economic growth. Allowing individuals to spend more of their own money as they see fit helps the market more accurately understand demand signals than when the government just spends trying to create demand out of nothing.

 

 

Here's a source talking specifically about Social Security ...


https://www.progress.org/articles/the-social-security-non-multiplier

 

Quote

 

The Social Security Non-Multiplier


The Social Security program is a loss, not a gain, to the economy.


In economic theory, the spending multiplier is the amount of output generated by spending. If you spend $100 for shoes, the seller orders $100 of new shoes, and that generates $100 of shoe product. In that case, the multiplier is one.

 

… snip …


An application of this doctrine is the essay, “Social Security’s Impact on the National Economy” by Gary Koenig and Al Myles, published for discussion by the AARP Public Policy Institute. In 2012, US Social Security paid $775 billion to recipients. There would seem to be a multiplier from this income, as the receivers buy goods, and then the sellers pay for labor and supplies, and so on. The input-output economic model used by the authors, IMPLAN, claims that the Social Security income “supports 9 million jobs” and adds $1.4 trillion in output. The authors conclude that every dollar of Social Security income generates $2 of additional output.


However, one cannot conclude from this analysis that without Social Security, output would be lower. First of all, the same or greater spending would be accomplished in the private sector if the funds put into payroll taxes were instead invested in the financial markets, such as with indexed mutual funds, and then converted into annuities that provide a lifetime income. The spending would be even higher, since for most workers today, Social Security pays back about what is put in, whereas investments would grow with compound interest, paying much more than what was invested. Also, the investments would generate more growth and so more income.


Secondly, in a normal economy (not depressed), savings does not just sit idle, but is loaned out for borrowers to spend. The Keynesian spending multiplier depends on investment being a fixed amount regardless of savings, but since investment comes from savings, more savings implies more spending for investment in capital goods and education. When all income is spent, there is no gain from governmental spending, since it replaces private spending. The money spent by Social Security recipients is taken from payroll taxes which otherwise would have been spent privately.

 

When it is recognized that savings are spent for investment, the model’s spending multiplier disappears. The spending multiplier model depends on a fixed amount of investment, so that more spending from private consumption or from government generates more output, because the “marginal propensity to consume” (the extra spending from extra income) is less than one. But as savings is spent by borrowers, the total marginal propensity to consume is one, and when government spends funds, the money is taken from the private sector as taxes or bonds, and reduces private spending.


While the superficial appearance is that the farmer who receives $100 and spends the funds for tools generates $100 of more tool production in addition to his $100 worth of more crops, the reality is that when the farmer repeatedly trades with the tool maker, there is no multiplier. Only if a foreigner injects $100 into the economy does spending rise, but if the farmer is already fully employed growing corn, the extra spending just raises the price of corn.


There is therefore no gain to the economy from Social Security. In a normal economy, the spending multiplier is a myth, and without Social Security, private spending would more than replace the spending from Social Security. By reducing savings and growth, Social Security is a loss, not a gain, to the economy.

 


And here are others sources saying pretty much the same thing … 


https://mises.org/wire/keynesian-multiplier-illusion “The Keynesian Multiplier Is an Illusion”


https://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/report/why-government-spending-does-not-stimulate-economic-growth-answering-the “Why Government Spending Does Not Stimulate Economic Growth: Answering the Critics”

 

So I stand by LIE #8, not called LIE #7.


Next, I challenged you to show how us how SS has worked to prevent government deficits, like FDR claimed it would?    Your response, “your guess is as good as mine”, makes no sense.   I’m not claiming SS prevented deficits.   FDR did.  I have no "guess".    If you can’t explain the logic behind that claim, I can only conclude that FDR and his cronies failed to provide you with an explanation that is believable.   Their making that claim without a supporting rational can only be interpreted as a lie, Sane ... LIE #8 (by the new numbering).  A lie because socialist/communists/DemocRATS have to have known, even back in FDR’s day, that taking money from peter to pay paul wouldn’t improve unemployment, the deficit or the economy.  The logic needed to understand this isn’t difficult.  It’s just logic that socialists/communists/DemocRATS, from the very beginning, have had to ignore or dismiss because their very agenda depends on convincing the public to the contrary.  

 

Quote

Your 10 & 11 are  really just semantics.  You're angry so you are looking to knock it down wherever possible. 

 

Sorry, but that statement is a LIE.   This is not just a matter of “semantics”.   SS did not fit the accepted definition of a pension or insurance, even back in FDR’s day.   And there certainly is a difference between a pension and insurance, so FDR and the SSA calling it both was dishonest.     As I noted, pensions and insurance are administered and funded quite differently, and their benefits are designed for different people.   Even the New York Times  acknowledged that SS isn't a pension, but that it was sold as one: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/05/business/05norris.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 "Is Social Security a pension plan?  No, but it was sold to the public in the 1930s as if it were one ...".    That being the case, even the NY Times recognized that FDR and the SSA LIED to the public, Sane.     So LIES #9 and #10 are still in play.

 

Quote

The word "Insurance" is used to give people faith that these funds will be there for them.  (Now if you want to argue that since the original investment component was never initiated, and no politician had since made any attempt to do so.  That there will come a point were those funds wont be there.  I'll agree with you 100%.)

 

Now you’re the one playing games with “semantics”.    And I will argue that since FDR (who had 10 years to do so) never made ANY attempt to create a trust fund that was invested, he LIED to the public when he used the word insurance.   He did not put in place what was needed to ensure the funds would be there for the contributors as insurance.  A private insurer would go to jail these days for doing what he did.    I would argue that he deliberately didn’t do it because the objective of Fabian Socialists like FDR and his Brain Trust was to make contributors poorer and ultimately dependent on the government so that their agenda of socialism/communism (the idea of being taken care of by the government)  would be appealing.

 

Quote

For your 12 &13 I think you need to remember that at that point in time this would have allowed older workers a way to retire.  I have no doubt that took place.  I don't think that qualifies as a lie because at the it would be true.  

 

I won’t argue that at first SS might have allowed older workers to retire, but if the objective of the Fabian Socialists like FDR was to make all workers more dependent on the government … and it arguably was ... then not telling them SS would eventually prevent that (if they wanted to keep their standard of living) constitutes a lie in order to sell the program.  Any decent actuarial analysis would have seen that SSA was going to have to raise the age at which one can get the "pension" (it simply wasn’t sustainable to be giving the income of so many people to one retiree).      Remember, the ratio of payees to retirees started out at 159 to 1. Imagine that … 159 people paying into the system for every person what was taking money out it.    THEY KNEW THAT WOULDN'T CONTINUE but they didn't tell the public.   By 1950, there were only 16 workers supporting each retiree. By 1965 it was down to 4 to 1. Now it’s slightly under three people supporting one, and by 2030 it’s predicted that there will only be two people supporting each *retiree*.   They lied to get the program passed, Sane, clear as day.   They knew that the number of retirees was going to increase faster than the increase in the number of workers to keep up with the initial  ratio.   A five year old might know that.   And they would know that SS would prevent the younger generation from keeping and investing their own money, so they’d be even more depend on SS than previous generations.  Even back then, conservatives were rightly arguing against the program for these very reasons, Sane, warning people that they would not get what was FDR was promising them.   That it was all a pipe dream.    And FDR and his minions then lied about those critics to keep the public from heeding their warnings.   And demagogued everyone else into supporting the scam they were promoting.

 

Quote

Your 14 and 15 really do get back to semantics because you're mad.  

 

False, old LIES #14 and #15 are no more semantics than old LIES #10 and #11.    Words have meaning, Scan.  Even back then, pension meant something SPECIFIC … something much different than the word insurance.   If FDR was telling people SS was a “pension” and his SSA committee was calling it “insurance”, then they was lying.   It can't be both.   He even called SS both a pension and insurance in the same speech.   LYING.   What he was doing was obfuscating … confusing the issue so the public wouldn’t know what to think.   And that is at heart a dishonest tactic meant to paralyze the opposition to what he was proposing.   Deliberately muddying the water ... because he knew that SS was neither a pension or insurance.   And it’s not “semantics” to note that he told his audience that premiums collected for SS "insurance" would be "held by the Government solely for the benefit of the worker in his old age” … that it was “in effect”, “a savings account for the old age of the worker".    That was an outright LIE, because he knew there would be no “savings account” since he never had any plan to create one.   If FDR had made an attempt to set up the equivalent of a savings account “solely” for the benefit of the contributing worker, then that wouldn’t have been a lie.  But he made no such attempt … not in the 10 years that followed passage of the Social Security Act.   It was simply a LIE to sell the program to that unwitting and gullible audience.    Thus, LIES #14 and #15 (now #13 and #14) remain in play.    You’re spinning, Sane, and everyone here can see it.

 

Finally, I notice that you skipped old LIE #16, now #15.   That was with regards to FDR attacking the opponents of the program as unpatriotic.  He said  "These propagandists with allies whom I do not have to describe to you who know them- are driven in their desperation to the contemptible, unpatriotic suggestion that some future Congress will steal these insurance funds for other purposes. If they really believe what they say in the pay envelopes, they have no confidence in our form of government or its permanence. It might be well for them to move to some other Nation in which they have greater faith."    So as you can clearly see, Sane, it wasn't that noone suspected this scam was robbery.   They did and his response was not an honest one.   His response was to call them "unpatriotic".    But truth is, he derided the people who were right ... that some future Congress (or President) would steal the social security contributions and use them for other purposes.  That is exactly what happened.   Because NOTHING was ever invested.   Because he and the folks he chose to run SSA did NOTHING to ensure that wouldn't happen.   He didn't ensure the folks had a real right to their contributions.  He didn't create a trust fund to hold the contributions for sole use by the SSA.   He did NOTHING.   He let  everything was paid for out of taxes from the general fund.    Isn't it ironic that those "propagandists" we're right?  He knew he was lying to the people about this ...  LIE #15.

 

Quote

If your argument is it was ill conceived and poorly executed.  I agree with you.  I think the original intent was a good idea and here's why.  If they had set up an investment account and let it be.  We wouldn't have this issue now with the deficit.

 

On this we agree.  Getting people to save money for retirement was a good idea.   Still is a good idea.   But SS was so ill conceived that it has made most of it’s contributors much poorer than they should be.    But then, saving money for retirement wasn’t the real intent of SS.  If it had been, then an invested trust would have been planned and established.     But, remember, SS a system designed by the FABIAN SOCIALISTS, FDR and his so-called Brain Trust, and they had an entirely different agenda than simply making people save enough to retire safely.   And THAT agenda overrode the stated one … the one with which they fooled the public.  THAT agenda sought to make the populace more dependent on the government as time went by.   What better way than to take away from them the money they could have used to build a nest egg and make it available for socialists/communists like them to spend willy nilly on other things.
 

Quote

It is irresponsible to not save for retirement, but if you suddenly find yourself there.  A small amount that will at least let you survive is a good idea.

 

That's what welfare is for, not Social Security.   To establish the monstrosity called Social Security, that robs so many of their potential future just to take care of the few who honest welfare could meet the needs of, is only socialists/communists (i.e., Fabian Socialists) would dream up.

 

Now … do you want to discuss the Rule of 72 and the proof that most SS contributors have been robbed of better futures by Social Security?  B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/30/2019 at 5:09 PM, BeAChooser said:

 

False.    If FDR made promises and then didn’t do whatever was necessary to try to ensure that what he said was true, then he was being dishonest ... lying.   He was a life-long politician, so if he said things he knew were unlikely to be true because of the nature of politicians (especially those on his side of the political aisle), he was lying.


Take for instance, the statement "that is the most you will ever pay."  What did he do to ensure that was true?   Anything?   Anything at all?  I bet you can’t point out anything he actually did to ensure that.    And if he didn't, then he knowingly lying to the public, Sane.   Because, after all, he knew exactly what politicians were like.  He knew they were likely to break that promise … especially his party, which wanted even back then to provide everything to everybody for free.    He sold the program based on a LIE.   LIE #1    If he’d told the public the truth about that … if he’d told them that future politicians might raise the limits so that instead of paying 1 or 2% of income as promised, they’d be paying 10% or 15% of their income into Social Security, they’d have said NO WAY JOSE.    So he lied to them in order to get the program passed.   He lied, Sane, and everyone here knows it but you and the left, whose agenda, not coincidently, has benefited from that lie.   And that’s your real motivation for defending him here.   Defending the overall socialist agenda,   At least be honest about THAT.


Now consider what I called LIE #2 … that "the checks will come to you as a right. You will get them regardless of the amount of property or income you may have."   That was said at a time when he was President in order to sell the program.   But he had to have known there was nothing in the law or regulations that would make it a “right”.  Nothing in the Constitution that would make it a "right".    He knew that the government that giveth could just as easily not giveth.    Show me where he or the SSA when selling the program told the public that?  Was honest with them about the possibility of duplicity by future Presidents?    Show me anything FDR or the SSA did to prevent the program from being means tested or to prevent future politicians from adjusting the income at which SS had to be paid?    You won’t be able to because they took no precautions.  None at all.   Which means he knowingly lied, Sane.
 

Now I would agree that LIE #3 is on future politicians, but they were only able to do what they did because FDR never did anything to make SS checks a real “right” ... to ensure that the contributor actually owned his contributions.     The law could have been written that way, but it wasn't.     But, for purposes of this discussion, I will agree that LIE #2 and LIE #3 are the basically the same lie since they both pertain to the issue of “right”.   So good for you.  You’ve reduced the total number of lies by FDR and his administration to 15.


But I stand by my assertion that the pamphlet stating ”the law also creates an "Old-Age Reserve Account" in the United States Treasury, and Congress is authorized to put into this reserve account each year enough money to provide for the monthly payments you and other workers are to receive when you are 65" is LIE ... now LIE #3 (for purpose of proper accounting).   And the responsibility for that lie is all on FDR and his administration, because they never established a reserve account … an “Old-Age Reserve” trust or fund, where the money that was collected would be held for participants.  And FDR had 10 years to do that after the SS Act passed.    He never even tried, so clearly that wasn't part of the plan.  Meaning that FDR and the SSA LIED about that just to get the program passed.  


Next, the pamphlet saying  "the Old-Age Reserve fund in the United States Treasury is drawing interest, and the Government guarantees it will never earn less than 3 percent” was also a LIE by FDR and his cronies, not some future politician.   You show me ANYTHING they enacted as law or wrote in regulation or even tried to put in place to “guarantee” contributors would earn at least "3 percent" on their contributions.   ANYTHING.   If you can’t, then FDR and his crew were clearly lying to sell the program to an unwitting public.     They clearly never had any intention of setting up something to guarantee that sort of return.   It was just a lie, LIE #4, by current accounting.  In fact, to make matter worse, remember that when SS was first established, Ida Mae Fuller, the first Social Security recipient, got 462 times what she and her employer together paid in “contributions”.  That's some return on investment and the Social Security website even boasted about that (http://www.ssa.gov/history/idapayroll.html) as a selling point, knowing full well that others would not get that sort of return.  THEY KNOWINGLY LIED TO THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE SORT OF RETURNS THEY WOULD BE GETTING.   And I think it was done to keep the public complacent and supporting during those first few critical years when SS could have been repealed or fixed without causing too much havoc.   Once they got past that grace period, the Fabians knew it would be almost impossible to repeal or even fix.    Stuart Chase said as much in his books on what they planned.    Just as Obama and his cronies knew that if Obamacare could survive long enough, it would be cast in concrete.  Too bad we didn't have the equivalent of Trump and the internet after FDR, and even with them going back has been next to impossible.


The pamphlet, written by FDR and his henchmen, not other politicians, ends with the declaration  “What you get from the Government plan will always be more than you have paid in taxes and usually more than you can get for yourself by putting away the same amount of money each week in some other way”.  Again, show me where they established ANYTHING in law or regulation to guarantee that … or even try to guarantee that, Sane.  I bet you can’t and if you can’t, then it was clearly another LIE meant to sell the program.   LIE #5.  

 
FDR's dishonest statement that Alfred Landon’s criticism of the program wasn’t true is also entirely on FDR.   He said that Social Security tax dollars “are held in a Government trust fund solely for the social security of the workers.”   I’ll repeat again … there was and never has been a trust fund.   Because FDR and his cronies did NOTHING to set one up.   It was, as I said, a public relations ploy ... as Social Security Board Chairman Arthur Altimeyer admitted “to allay the unwarranted fears of some people who thought Uncle Sam was embezzling the money”.   It was LIE #6 but the new count.


So, six of the first seven lies I identified are all on FDR, not some future President.   One was just a duplicate and not on some future President either.   Proving that your statement was false and that your spinning for all your worth, now that you've returned to the thread.    But it’s not going to work, *mr finance”.   Now let’s look at the next 8 lies that I had listed.


Calling it LIE #8, I challenged you to show how SS reduced unemployment, as promised by FDR, and asserted that SS has increased unemployment by reducing economic growth.  Your unsupported response that “any ingestion of capital into the economy will spur economic growth” is a LIE … a lie that is constantly promoted by leftists.  It was a lie much discussed when Bush Sr and Obama decided to massively stimulate the economy.   It's a lie in this case because when the government taxes, and then gives to *retired* seniors some portion of those taxes, that does NOT spur growth because the people that money was taken from would have spent or invested it themselves.   There is no net gain.  There’s a net loss.   


Hoover almost doubled government spending with the largest public works projects in history to that point in time.  Yet by the time he left office, the unemployment rate was close to 25%.  Clearly, stimulus spending and government interference did not work.  FDR campaigned in 1932 by attacking Hoover's spending as wasteful and unwise.  The Democratic Party platform recommended “an immediate and drastic reduction of governmental expenditures”.   Then one elected, doubled down on Hoover's spending.   Yet, from 1934 to 1940, the median annual unemployment rate was 17.2 percent.   At no point during the 1930s did unemployment go below 14 percent, which past recessions and depressions prove would have happened anyway.   FDR tripled taxes during the Great Depression, from $1.6 billion in 1933 to $5.3 billion in 1940 ... well before WW2 began.    Despite all those taxes and the government spending that ensued, unemployment remained VERY high … at depression levels.  FDR's own treasury secretary. Henry Morgenthau, admitted "We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. … snip … I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started .... and an enormous debt to boot!".    Handing money to seniors is no different, Sane.   It doesn't stimulate the economy over and above what it would have done anyway.

   
Here’s why …


https://reason.com/2009/01/12/practical-reasons-why-stimulus/

 

 

Here's a source talking specifically about Social Security ...


https://www.progress.org/articles/the-social-security-non-multiplier

 


And here are others sources saying pretty much the same thing … 


https://mises.org/wire/keynesian-multiplier-illusion “The Keynesian Multiplier Is an Illusion”


https://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/report/why-government-spending-does-not-stimulate-economic-growth-answering-the “Why Government Spending Does Not Stimulate Economic Growth: Answering the Critics”

 

So I stand by LIE #8, not called LIE #7.


Next, I challenged you to show how us how SS has worked to prevent government deficits, like FDR claimed it would?    Your response, “your guess is as good as mine”, makes no sense.   I’m not claiming SS prevented deficits.   FDR did.  I have no "guess".    If you can’t explain the logic behind that claim, I can only conclude that FDR and his cronies failed to provide you with an explanation that is believable.   Their making that claim without a supporting rational can only be interpreted as a lie, Sane ... LIE #8 (by the new numbering).  A lie because socialist/communists/DemocRATS have to have known, even back in FDR’s day, that taking money from peter to pay paul wouldn’t improve unemployment, the deficit or the economy.  The logic needed to understand this isn’t difficult.  It’s just logic that socialists/communists/DemocRATS, from the very beginning, have had to ignore or dismiss because their very agenda depends on convincing the public to the contrary.  

 

 

Sorry, but that statement is a LIE.   This is not just a matter of “semantics”.   SS did not fit the accepted definition of a pension or insurance, even back in FDR’s day.   And there certainly is a difference between a pension and insurance, so FDR and the SSA calling it both was dishonest.     As I noted, pensions and insurance are administered and funded quite differently, and their benefits are designed for different people.   Even the New York Times  acknowledged that SS isn't a pension, but that it was sold as one: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/05/business/05norris.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 "Is Social Security a pension plan?  No, but it was sold to the public in the 1930s as if it were one ...".    That being the case, even the NY Times recognized that FDR and the SSA LIED to the public, Sane.     So LIES #9 and #10 are still in play.

 

 

Now you’re the one playing games with “semantics”.    And I will argue that since FDR (who had 10 years to do so) never made ANY attempt to create a trust fund that was invested, he LIED to the public when he used the word insurance.   He did not put in place what was needed to ensure the funds would be there for the contributors as insurance.  A private insurer would go to jail these days for doing what he did.    I would argue that he deliberately didn’t do it because the objective of Fabian Socialists like FDR and his Brain Trust was to make contributors poorer and ultimately dependent on the government so that their agenda of socialism/communism (the idea of being taken care of by the government)  would be appealing.

 

 

I won’t argue that at first SS might have allowed older workers to retire, but if the objective of the Fabian Socialists like FDR was to make all workers more dependent on the government … and it arguably was ... then not telling them SS would eventually prevent that (if they wanted to keep their standard of living) constitutes a lie in order to sell the program.  Any decent actuarial analysis would have seen that SSA was going to have to raise the age at which one can get the "pension" (it simply wasn’t sustainable to be giving the income of so many people to one retiree).      Remember, the ratio of payees to retirees started out at 159 to 1. Imagine that … 159 people paying into the system for every person what was taking money out it.    THEY KNEW THAT WOULDN'T CONTINUE but they didn't tell the public.   By 1950, there were only 16 workers supporting each retiree. By 1965 it was down to 4 to 1. Now it’s slightly under three people supporting one, and by 2030 it’s predicted that there will only be two people supporting each *retiree*.   They lied to get the program passed, Sane, clear as day.   They knew that the number of retirees was going to increase faster than the increase in the number of workers to keep up with the initial  ratio.   A five year old might know that.   And they would know that SS would prevent the younger generation from keeping and investing their own money, so they’d be even more depend on SS than previous generations.  Even back then, conservatives were rightly arguing against the program for these very reasons, Sane, warning people that they would not get what was FDR was promising them.   That it was all a pipe dream.    And FDR and his minions then lied about those critics to keep the public from heeding their warnings.   And demagogued everyone else into supporting the scam they were promoting.

 

 

False, old LIES #14 and #15 are no more semantics than old LIES #10 and #11.    Words have meaning, Scan.  Even back then, pension meant something SPECIFIC … something much different than the word insurance.   If FDR was telling people SS was a “pension” and his SSA committee was calling it “insurance”, then they was lying.   It can't be both.   He even called SS both a pension and insurance in the same speech.   LYING.   What he was doing was obfuscating … confusing the issue so the public wouldn’t know what to think.   And that is at heart a dishonest tactic meant to paralyze the opposition to what he was proposing.   Deliberately muddying the water ... because he knew that SS was neither a pension or insurance.   And it’s not “semantics” to note that he told his audience that premiums collected for SS "insurance" would be "held by the Government solely for the benefit of the worker in his old age” … that it was “in effect”, “a savings account for the old age of the worker".    That was an outright LIE, because he knew there would be no “savings account” since he never had any plan to create one.   If FDR had made an attempt to set up the equivalent of a savings account “solely” for the benefit of the contributing worker, then that wouldn’t have been a lie.  But he made no such attempt … not in the 10 years that followed passage of the Social Security Act.   It was simply a LIE to sell the program to that unwitting and gullible audience.    Thus, LIES #14 and #15 (now #13 and #14) remain in play.    You’re spinning, Sane, and everyone here can see it.

 

Finally, I notice that you skipped old LIE #16, now #15.   That was with regards to FDR attacking the opponents of the program as unpatriotic.  He said  "These propagandists with allies whom I do not have to describe to you who know them- are driven in their desperation to the contemptible, unpatriotic suggestion that some future Congress will steal these insurance funds for other purposes. If they really believe what they say in the pay envelopes, they have no confidence in our form of government or its permanence. It might be well for them to move to some other Nation in which they have greater faith."    So as you can clearly see, Sane, it wasn't that noone suspected this scam was robbery.   They did and his response was not an honest one.   His response was to call them "unpatriotic".    But truth is, he derided the people who were right ... that some future Congress (or President) would steal the social security contributions and use them for other purposes.  That is exactly what happened.   Because NOTHING was ever invested.   Because he and the folks he chose to run SSA did NOTHING to ensure that wouldn't happen.   He didn't ensure the folks had a real right to their contributions.  He didn't create a trust fund to hold the contributions for sole use by the SSA.   He did NOTHING.   He let  everything was paid for out of taxes from the general fund.    Isn't it ironic that those "propagandists" we're right?  He knew he was lying to the people about this ...  LIE #15.

 

 

On this we agree.  Getting people to save money for retirement was a good idea.   Still is a good idea.   But SS was so ill conceived that it has made most of it’s contributors much poorer than they should be.    But then, saving money for retirement wasn’t the real intent of SS.  If it had been, then an invested trust would have been planned and established.     But, remember, SS a system designed by the FABIAN SOCIALISTS, FDR and his so-called Brain Trust, and they had an entirely different agenda than simply making people save enough to retire safely.   And THAT agenda overrode the stated one … the one with which they fooled the public.  THAT agenda sought to make the populace more dependent on the government as time went by.   What better way than to take away from them the money they could have used to build a nest egg and make it available for socialists/communists like them to spend willy nilly on other things.
 

 

That's what welfare is for, not Social Security.   To establish the monstrosity called Social Security, that robs so many of their potential future just to take care of the few who honest welfare could meet the needs of, is only socialists/communists (i.e., Fabian Socialists) would dream up.

 

Now … do you want to discuss the Rule of 72 and the proof that most SS contributors have been robbed of better futures by Social Security?  B)

Wow you need help.  You really do.  You are just filled with blind rage about some fantasy cooked up by the right wing nut media machine.  I'm defending him because I'm part of the socialist agenda?  Right.  You have a screw loose.  You really do.  You've written a Bad wordin manfesto.  I expect to see you on TV soon as part of mass shooting.  That is why the right wing media hate machine is so dangerous.  They fill peoples heads with these spin jobs to get them to tune in.  They could care less how insane they make you. 

Given this I would assume you have been in New York with a few others entertaining fascism.  Something the right wing nuts are starting to embrace again.  Not actually setting up the fund was the mistake, but your lala land thinking it was a secret socialist agenda.  Please.  That there out to create a welfare state and are just trying to trick you.  You might as well believe in bigfoot.  Seriously you need help.  If you want to say it was ill conceived and poorly executed.  I'm on board with that.  Knowing full well the Evil Republicans (see how that sounds) and their secret fascist agenda to destroy freedom would rape it in the 80's (See how bat sh*t crazy that sounds?) And no not cause your party is the "good" party.  Because it sound f*cking crazy to have this level of delusion.  One party is all evil and the other is like jesus came from heaven.  Tell me that isn't what you believe.  If it is.  Talk to someone before you do something you with you hadn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sane said:

Wow you need help.  You really do.  You are just filled with blind rage about some fantasy cooked up by the right wing nut media machine.

 

Wow ... what a lame attempt to try and dismiss what I noted.   I'm sorry, snowflake, but no one made any of that stuff up.  It's FDR's and the SSA's own words.   It's cold, crystal clear logic that you can't prove wrong.    That you can't find traction to defend FDR and his fellow Fabians from it is because there is no defense.   You and I both no that.

 

Quote

I'm defending him because I'm part of the socialist agenda?

 

There is no doubt they were hardcore socialists ... Fabians to be precise, Sane.   Which makes them actually communists.   Now maybe you didn't know that.     If you're not a socialist, then you should be thanking me at this point for opening your eyes to a grand deception.   You wouldn't want to walk around an unknowingly be promoting/defending their hidden agenda.  B)

 

Quote

You have a screw loose.  You really do.

 

Ah ... you're down to personal attacks?   So predictable.   As I said, everything I quoted FDR or the SSA saying, they said.  Prove me wrong.   I believe I've successfully proven that they lied 15 times in selling SS to a gullible public.   Your attempt to explain away those lies failed, snowflake.   That's why you're stooping to personal attacks.    My advice is just admit I was right ... because if you can't do that, you're going to look mighty foolish when we get to discussing how much Social Security has hurt it's average contributor.

 

Quote

You've written a Bad wordin manfesto.

 

Explaining and defending the assertion that FDR and his cronies lied 15 times in selling Social Security is not something one can do in one line.    The fact it's so long is just because I thoroughly researched and though about this, Sane.   Doesn't make it wrong.

 

Quote

I expect to see you on TV soon as part of mass shooting.

 

Now you're really starting to debate like a 911 Truther.   Just because you failed to prove me wrong, Sane, you accuse me of be a potential mass shooter?   That sort of statement and logic only makes it even clearer that YOU KNOW you lost this particular debate.   You just don't have the good sense to do it gracefully.   But then Truthers never do.

 

Quote

They fill peoples heads with these spin jobs to get them to tune in.  They could care less how insane they make you.

 

Again, you haven't proving ANYTHING I said wrong.   You're the one spinning now, *Mr Finance*.   Trying to find some way to cover for your stupidity in insulting me earlier.

 

Quote

Given this I would assume you have been in New York with a few others entertaining fascism.

 

Wow.   You're just pulling out the stops, snowflake.   I think I've triggered him using facts and solid logic, folks.   Facts and logic are like poison to Truthers.

 

Quote

Not actually setting up the fund was the mistake, but your lala land thinking it was a secret socialist agenda.  Please.  That the[y']re out to create a welfare state and are just trying to trick you.  You might as well believe in bigfoot.  Seriously you need help. 

 

It's not "lala" thinking.   And it wasn't *that* secret an agenda.   It was an "open conspiracy", just like Fabian Socialist H.G. Wells said.   You see, snowflake, he not only wrote a book titled ""New Words For Old: A Plain Account of Modern Socialism", but one titled "The Open Conspiracy".  And it was a blueprint for exactly what *progressive* DemocRATS in this country have doing the past century ... gradually turning the US into a socialist/communist state, right in front of everyone's nose.   And one of the members of FDR's Brain Trust ... you know, the people that helped FDR design Social Security and the New Deal ... was Fabian Socialist Stuart Chase.   He also wrote two books where he openly discussed the socialist agenda and how to achieve it in this country.      Have you read either of them, Sane?    If you haven't read them, I suggest you do.   I'd be happy to discuss their content in detail with you.   Here are their names ... "A New Deal" (1931) and "The Road We Are Traveling" (1942).   The last book is particularly interesting since it's subtitled “GUIDE LINES to America’s future”.   Here it is if you want to read it  (https://archive.org/details/TheRoadWeAreTraveling/page/n43 ) but I'll try to save you the trouble.

 

In it he laid out the plan to convert America’s free enterprise economy into what he called “X”.  He listed 18 characteristics he had observed among Russia, Germany, Italy, Japan, and Spain between 1913 and 1942. These characteristics included a strong, centralized government and an executive arm growing at the expense of the legislative and judicial arms. Read the whole chapter on “X” and you find Chase saying that we might as well accept it … that planned economies, massive central governments, autocratic rule (i.e., all the things associated with communist governments) are here to stay.  If you read the book, which I doubt you will since you seem to be having problems with anything I offer you, you will find it’s a celebration of that road.  A celebration of planned economies.  Of restraining capitalists.  Of spreading the wealth.  Of socialist thinking in general.  Of communism.   Chase is happy about all those 18 things happening in other countries and in the US … and what that portends for America’s future.  He talks in the book about the need for “change” in America, just like Obama did in 2008 and Democrats are still doing.  And it’s noteworthy that Obama put out a video in 2012 titled "The Road We've Traveled”.  Where do you think he got that phrase from?    He clearly read Chase's book and was gloating about the success that been achieved towards the ends laid out in that book.  Obama has said, since the beginning, that he wants to "transform" America … just like Chase clearly said he wanted to do.  In his book, Chase said that if enough pieces of society were fundamentally transformed into Political System X, then there would be no going back. There would be no returning to capitalism or a free market.  And that was clearly Obama's intention from day ONE.  It was FDR's as well.

 

You see, Sane, it's not a secret.   I've never said it was secret.   I've just said that Fabians have deceived the PUBLIC.   And the leftist media has helped them do it.   After the chapter in which Chase first introduced the notion of “X”, there’s a chapter titled “Goals For America.”  He says the first goal should be “to satisfy the needs and desires of the common people.”   Gee ... that sure sounds like FDR's agenda.    He says the answer to that goal is life long “security” … security provided by the government.  Isn’t that EXACTLY what every socialist/communist government and leader in history has promised “the common people”?  Isn't that exactly what FDR and his cronies were promising.   What LBJ promised?   What Obama promised?   What DemocRATS are still demanding?    Chase even talks about the “cult of the proletariat” being engulfed in this new revolution … a “revolution” “wider and deeper than anything Karl Marx imagined”, he writes.   It’s SUPER socialism he’s describing.  It’s SUPER communism. It’s Fabianism he’s describing … the same communism that Fabian Teddy Roosevelt advocated a century ago and that FDR worked to put in place years later.  The same communism that Obama glorified in speech after speech.  That Bernie is now promoting.

 

It's not secret.   It's right there out in the open.   You just aren't paying attention.   

 

There's a section in Chase's book titled “What We Must Do”.   Chase talks about “national minimum” living standards.  He says “we have had public schools for many years. It is now proposed to add food, housing, medical care, clothing, to universal education.”  He labels those things RIGHTS.  That's just what FDR said about Society Security.    If that isn’t a restatement of Marx’s “to each, according to his need” philosophy, what is?  Marx talked about free access and distribution of goods, capital and services … all provided by the government.  And he said that would be possible due to the abundance of goods and services that a developed communist system would produce. Well that is NO DIFFERENT than the goals that Chase said we should strive toward in his book. No different than the message he imparted about the new economy that he envisioned.   Like I said, Chase was a communist. And FDR gave a top job in his administration to him.   He made him a member of a very select group of people hailed by the LEFTIST media as FDR's Brain Trust.

 

At the end of the Goals chapter, Chase summarizes his platform:  First he called for full employment.  Those who can’t find work in private industry are to be EMPLOYED BY THE STATE, he said.   And if they won’t work, they are to be incarcerated in “sanatoriums”.  How Soviet.  In other words, they are to be viewed as SICK.  Next, he called for full and prudent use of material resources.   In other words, a planned economy with neither idle men or idle machinery.   Then he guaranteed five essentials to every citizen — food, housing, clothing, health services and education.  That's communism … pure and simple.  Next he added social insurance.  The government will take care of people at all stages of life, from cradle to grave.  That's exactly what the communist party was promising in the 20 and 30s in the UK where Fabianism was born.  And THAT was the agenda of FDR and his Brain Trust.   Finally, he said the government will establish labor standards.  The government will control all aspects of the work place.   Now if that isn’t a description of socialist/communist society … all prettied up … what is?  And isn't that EXACTLY what FDR proceeded to try and do during the New Deal?  You see, Sane, there was no secret to what they were doing.   The media just didn't pass what they written to each other on to the public at large.  And the public wasn't looking farther than the end of their nose and had no internet to help them discover these things.
 
And as with all socialist/communist utopias, the money to make this "X" work would … well let’s be honest … grow on trees.   Chase suggested that government would eliminate all waste (idle man years and idle production) and that would pay for all these wonderful things he envisioned.  Just the sort of pipe dream that socialists and communists have been promising the gullible for over a hundred years now.    That they are still promising the gullible.   You’d think by now, with all the failures to deliver on those promises, leftists would have realized what a pipe dream those promises are?   But no, leftists, it seems, are incapable of learning.  And thanks to Public Education and the Leftist Media, their brains are too full of memes and mush.   And both have also been successful in keeping conservatives from waking to the danger.   It is an "open conspiracy", just like HG Wells said.

 

Now in the next chapter, Chase starts out by saying the goals above are incompatible with “business as usual” and that by “business as usual” he says he means “a condition where prices are set in the open market, where hope of profit is the mainspring of new investment, and where government acts only as umpire for a system of free enterprise.”   Isn’t that exactly what a communist would say? He goes on to say “in war and peace, boom and depression, the march toward centralized, collective controls has continued.”  Aren't COLLECTIVE CONTROLS exactly what FDR's New Deal tried to put in place?  Chase was promoting collectivism … communism ... and he was an inner circle member of FDR's administration.      And he was telling readers that it's inevitable.   He admits in the book that planning has often been identified with socialism (and by that he clearly means communism as well, since he includes a number of communist countries in his list of where this planning has been taking place).  Then he tries to hide the wolf (how Fabian) by calling what he envisions a “managerial revolution” … “X” … “displacing the system of free enterprise, all over the world”.  That’s when he lists the characteristics of “X” … the ones that sound suspiciously just like a communist country.   He points out that the characteristics are “incipient in some countries”, full blown in other.   The US is one of them.   Then he says we need “X” for “community survival, which is perhaps the most fundamental good there is”.  Boy, doesn't that sound like you modern day leftists.    Now where have we heard that before? Hmmmmmmm?  Why from Obama, of course.

 

Now think about that statement for a moment  Wasn't Chase essentially saying what the Soviets said when they spoke of the “good of the people”?   The Communist Manifesto had ten essential planks:
 
• Abolition of Private Property.
• Heavy Progressive Income Tax.
• Abolition of Rights of Inheritance.
• Confiscation of Property Rights.
• Central Bank.
• Government Ownership of Communication and Transportation.
• Government Ownership of Factories and Agriculture.
• Government Control of Labor.
• Corporate Farms and Regional Planning.
• Government Control of Education.
 

I want you to tell us, Sane, how the characteristics that Chase defined for “X” differ from them?   How the characteristics of the modern Democratic Party differ from them? How what Obama worked towards differed from them.    How what Sanders and the other 19 DemocRAT candidates propose differs from them?   Because they don’t ... not in any significant way.   The Communist Manifesto was a rebellion against poverty of the lower class.  And it was no secret.    It was right out there in the open.   And so was Chase’s manifesto (his book).   Communism says everyone should “work according to their ability and give to each according to his need,” for the “common” good of society.  For the good of the people.   Therefore the State must regulate all possessions, all power, all authority, and provide the leadership for the good of the community, otherwise the individual will think selfishly. The State becomes the answer to every problem.   And that is exactly Chase’s thinking in his book. Exactly FDRs.   Exactly Obama’s.   Exactly Hillary’s.  Exactly Sanders. And unfortunately now, exactly the GOPe’s.
 
Finally, at the end of that chapter, Chase has a section titled “We Can’t Go Back”.   This is important and relevant to what I said earlier about why FDR and his cronies lied to the public about Society Security.    Like I already noted, Chase said that if enough pieces of society are transformed into Political System X, which he said had already happened because of the war and FDR’s machinations, then we would not be able to turn the ship around.   He then writes of the recommendations of The Resources Board.  The National Resources Planning Board (NRPB) is one of the agencies FDR created as part of the “New Deal” that Chase must have been most proud of, I suspect.  But to me, it was an agency that proved the basic wastefulness of big government and central planning.   The agency produced lots and lots of reports … like this 600 page one: https://www.ssa.gov/history/reports/NRPB/NRPBreport.html … with lots of recommendations.   Consider the first recommendation on page 545 of that report: “Increasing emphasis on policies aiming at the prevention of economic insecurity through a fuller utilization of our productive resources including labor, and by more comprehensive measures to improve the health of our people”  That’s just a bunch of hot air … but it reveals the thinking of communists like Chase.    Consider that phrase “our productive resources including labor.”   Workers are viewed as national resources to be manipulated and exploited by the government. And of course, when central planning doesn’t work, the solution will be more planning.  As the Depression experience proved time and time again. 
 
In Chase’s “Road We Are Traveling” book he noted that the Resources Board recommended forcing full employment with public works projects (in housing, conservation, power development, transportation).  And that would only be an “opening gun”, in his words.    He never really spells out what the next salvo will be, however.   Maybe he figured doing that might actually scare people … and Fabians generally don’t like to do that.     Just saying …

 

In any case, Sane,  Chase was an admitted Fabian Socialist (a very important one), an unabashed communist, and one of FDR's chief advisers. And not the only one. Another Fabian (i.e., communist) member of FDR’s brain trust was Walter Lippman, who at one point openly advocated that FDR become a dictator.  Lippman was influenced, presumably, by Stalin's apparent success as one. I don’t think Chase was all that averse to Stalin’s methods either. Chase toured the Soviet Union … in 1927 … and met with both Stalin and Trotsky. At that time Stalin already had more than a hundred thousand people in concentration camps. And the world knew how bloody the Russian revolution had been. Yet Chase described the Soviet Five Year Plan as a “courageous and unprecedented experiment.”  He didn't care about the blood that was shed or the political prisoners.   And by the time he wrote the "New Deal" book in 1931, Stalin had incarcerated hundreds of thousands in the formally established Gulag. Chase wrote "Why should Russians have all the fun of remaking the world?" In fact, that was the last sentence of the “New Deal” book. And FDR brought him into his administration in an important position.   It wasn't a secret conspiracy, Sane ... it was right out in the open.

 

Chase wrote in his book that “Of one thing, however, I think we can be sure. Whatever the change, it is going in the direction of more collectivism, more social control of economic activity, more government ‘interference’, less freedom for private business.” He said we “MUST employ collective action” and in fact said he sympathized with what the termed the first road, the direct and single-minded attack along the lines of what Stalin did. He even says “It may some day be inevitable in this country” and adds “I am not seriously alarmed by the sufferings of the creditor class [capitalists], the troubles which the church is bound to encounter [remember, communists are Godless and the State is their religion], the restrictions on certain kinds of freedom which must result [freedom means nothing to a communist], nor even by the bloodshed of the transition period [shooting capitalists]. A better economic order is worth a little bloodshed.” And this is a man that FDR brought into his administration … who helped guide FDR’s thinking.  And FDR is the man Obama idolized.  

 

Another of Stuart’s roads to the future (the third one) was that an aroused citizenry forces its government to revise much of its business law, to institute certain powers and controls which will attack the problem of distribution at its source, intelligently, and not too violently, and with increasing thoroughness. That certainly sounds like what Obama, Hillary and Sanders are trying to do. Chase wrote "The road to violent revolution is blocked. The road to business dictatorship (BAC - that was his second road) has mud holes and soft shoulders. Other nations may follow one or the other in the next few years, but hardly the United States. We turn to the third and last road: the drastic and progressive revision of the economic structure avoiding an utter break with the past. It must entail collectivism pushed at last to control from the top, but control over landmarks with which we are reasonably familiar."  There you have it, right out in the open.    From Chase's own mouth.   He’s describing the exact approach that the Fabian Society laid out when it was founded over a hundred years ago … the year of Marx’s death. One based on infiltrating existing government and organizations.  And note the use of the word “progressive”. Progressive is just a code word for someone who believe Fabian socialist/communist thinking, whether they know it or not.

 

Chase continues that “It may entail a temporary dictatorship; I do not know.” So again, he’s clearly showing that he’s not opposed to dictatorship. Communists never are. He just wants suckers to believe the dictatorship would be “temporary”. A wolf in sheep’s clothing. But experience proves that dictatorships are never temporary. The elite socialists and communists at the top NEVER willingly step down once they seize the reigns of power. And even Chase had to have known that. He was just being a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Deluding the unwashed masses.  AND HE WORKED FOR FDR.

 

And the next part of his book is sobering (read it carefully) because I think it describes the situation we now find ourselves in now.  He says

 

Quote

 

Here is a nation of some 75 million adult citizens, conditioned to certain habits, certain ways of thinking. The economic system they have known is collapsing under them. They are bewildered, afraid. A majority is perhaps already convinced that extensive revisions are in order, but if those reforms put them back where they were in 1928, many would ask no more. With a good job, a new car, a television set, the mortgage reduce, the life insurance policy paid up, and money in the savings bank again, life would seem almost to good to be true. But an intelligent minority was not satisfied with 1928, and considerably augmented in number, it will not be satisfied with anything short of a definite measure of economic security in the years to come. … snip … This, if it be large enough, is the group which counts. Far short of a majority, it can carry the mass along, if only it be convinced where to go. Four people out of five with whom I talk today are expecting fundamental changes.

 

Before the ravages of deflation cease, I believe that the numbers of the intelligent minority will be sufficient to sway the inert mass; the farm laborers, unskilled workers, the less independent-minded of the skilled laborers, clerks and farmers. In opposition, we shall find bankers, brokers, large investors, speculators, the more stupid of the industrialists and small business men, the majority of lawyers and accountants, all the Elder Statesmen. I use the word stupid advisedly. The objectives of the group favoring change, as formulated at present or in the immediate future, will be to the advantage of industrial stability, and to the disadvantage primarily of large creditors and speculators.

 

… snip …

 

My contention is that the intelligent minority, whether or not it is destined to become a new economic class, will now permit more change than at any time since the Republic was founded — excepting for a few months during the War — and that is a good beginning. It will swing to the left, but only for a certain distance. That is enough too. When we reach that signboard, it will be time to explore the next section.

 

 

Chase would probably say that we are now ripe to see the third road come to fruition. That the masses of people could be convinced to accept socialism, even if it were called socialism. No more hiding is required. Hence the coming out of the Fabian Society in the UK with them proudly displaying the Fabian Wall to the public.  Hence a guy like Sanders openly running as a socialist.     Hence the DemocRAT"ic" Party's sharp turn to the left.   I think he’d probably say the masses might even accept communism, if prettied up a little to sound wonderful.  And I’m sure Chase would be all *tingly* at the prospect. Because after all, as I’ve said all along … he was a hard core communist. A Fabian Socialist.  The question is are YOU.
 

It's an amazing book, isn't it?   And I'm not done.   The next section of the book … you know, the rest of the book where Chase “mark”s the “road, first with specific goals, then with certain major agencies to achieve them” ... describes many of the things that FDR incorporated into his New Deal. Things that Obama and other modern progressives have been trying to incorporate into the fabric of America, as well. And what were some of the things Chase mentioned in the next section as specific goals?

 

- Abolishing the gold standard. Check. FDR did that.

- Using the government’s central bank to control inflation or deflation. Check. Progressives have been trying to do that for some time.

- Using the money supply to try and stop recessions. Check. Modern day leftists seem to think recessions should not occur. Capitalists know they will and must in a healthy economy.

- “Soaking the rich” (his words) through progressive taxation and inheritance taxes. Check. That’s been a major theme of leftists for a hundred years.

- Eliminating the distinction between earned and unearned income. That one is progressing with modern Democrats leading the charge.

- Confiscation of principle above a given maximum estate. That’s something being banded about in public by modern Democrats, particularly people like Sanders. Eat the Rich.

- Abandon the policy of balancing the budget every year. Check. Democrats didn’t even pass a budget during the Obama years.

- Forcing increases in wages through universal minimum wage laws.  Partially complete and on going. We’re now at $15 an hour in many cities/states and rising.

- Equalizing pay, regardless of the job. That’s on going with the left chanting why should anyone make more than someone else?

- Abolishing tariffs. That’s still on going although Trump is rolling back some of that now.

- Creation of a single foreign trade authority. Check. It’s the Commerce Department, created by Fabian Theodore Roosevelt.

- Create lotteries to fund the state. Check.  They are most prevalent in blue states.

- Try to control the economy through central planning. Started by FDR and still on going but not very successful.

- Create a National Planning Board. FDR did, although it was shut down because American’s still resisted the idea. Now government planning has been stealthily spread among various agencies including the DoD and EPA. Isn’t the government doing just that where energy is concerned?

- Government control of public works … highways, waterways, airways, public buildings, parks and playgrounds, public health, public education, food and drug inspection. Check.

- And then Chase mentions housing. That’s on going with leftists making big inroads.

- Provisions to totally regulate the work environment. Check. And just look at the mess that's made in California, for example.

- Unemployment insurance. Check.

 

As Chase said in the book’s next to last chapter, “This is the program of the third road. It is not an attempt to bolster up capitalism, it is frankly aimed at the destruction of capitalism, specifically in its most evil sense of ruthless expansion. The redistribution of national income, the sequestration of excess profits, and the control of new investment, are all designed to that end. If these methods, or others direct to the same goal, cannot restrain anarchic momentum of capitalism, there is nothing for it but wait for the precipice, striving to organize in advance the revolutionary forces which will then be liberated. Such is the Communist’s position, and from a certain philosophical point of view, there is much to be said for it.”  Now if that isn’t something spoken by a communist, I’d be very surprised. Yet FDR had him in his administration is a top position.  And modern DemocRATS still have the same overall agenda.

 

He goes on to say “The chief theoretic difference from the Marxian program lies in the matter of ownership. I agree with socialists in preferring to see the people own the chief means of production. But the title to a factory, important as it is, matters far less than the running of that factory. I believe that industry can be managed in the public interest without necessarily revolutionizing the status of the legal title.” Those are the words of a communist of the Fabian variety. One who wishes to get to utopia by a gradual and somewhat stealthy approach. Like FDR.  Like Obama.

 

And, finally, the last chapter of the book explains more about that approach. Chase says, “the intelligent minority cannot too soon set about organizing itself into shock troop units in every community in the Republics, working under a national coordinating body [the Democratic Party, I would think]. The purpose of the units is to unite like-minded people for their own education and for that of their communities on local and national economic problems. These local groups can form the nuclei for pamphleteering and for political organizations, in many cases. They will be particularly interested in making connections with local labor unions, farmers’ and consumers’ organizations, supply an outlet and a dynamic program to stimulate and unify these bodies.”  That sounds just like community organizing … the big thing amongst modern Democrats these days.  So it would appear you were wrong to dismiss me, Sane.  From what Chase wrote, it seem that communists are alive and well, and living amongst us.  And calling themselves progressives and Democratic Socialists.   And it's not secret conspiracy.  They are doing it right out in the open under everyone's CLUELESS nose.  So OPEN YOUR EYES, Sane.   STOP BEING ONE OF THOSE USEFUL IDIOTS THAT LENIN TALKED ABOUT.

 

Gee ... at this rate we'll never get to discussing the Rule of 72, Mr Finance.  :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/2/2019 at 12:02 AM, BeAChooser said:

 

Wow ... what a lame attempt to try and dismiss what I noted.   I'm sorry, snowflake, but no one made any of that stuff up.  It's FDR's and the SSA's own words.   It's cold, crystal clear logic that you can't prove wrong.    That you can't find traction to defend FDR and his fellow Fabians from it is because there is no defense.   You and I both no that.

 

 

There is no doubt they were hardcore socialists ... Fabians to be precise, Sane.   Which makes them actually communists.   Now maybe you didn't know that.     If you're not a socialist, then you should be thanking me at this point for opening your eyes to a grand deception.   You wouldn't want to walk around an unknowingly be promoting/defending their hidden agenda.  B)

 

 

Ah ... you're down to personal attacks?   So predictable.   As I said, everything I quoted FDR or the SSA saying, they said.  Prove me wrong.   I believe I've successfully proven that they lied 15 times in selling SS to a gullible public.   Your attempt to explain away those lies failed, snowflake.   That's why you're stooping to personal attacks.    My advice is just admit I was right ... because if you can't do that, you're going to look mighty foolish when we get to discussing how much Social Security has hurt it's average contributor.

 

 

Explaining and defending the assertion that FDR and his cronies lied 15 times in selling Social Security is not something one can do in one line.    The fact it's so long is just because I thoroughly researched and though about this, Sane.   Doesn't make it wrong.

 

 

Now you're really starting to debate like a 911 Truther.   Just because you failed to prove me wrong, Sane, you accuse me of be a potential mass shooter?   That sort of statement and logic only makes it even clearer that YOU KNOW you lost this particular debate.   You just don't have the good sense to do it gracefully.   But then Truthers never do.

 

 

Again, you haven't proving ANYTHING I said wrong.   You're the one spinning now, *Mr Finance*.   Trying to find some way to cover for your stupidity in insulting me earlier.

 

 

Wow.   You're just pulling out the stops, snowflake.   I think I've triggered him using facts and solid logic, folks.   Facts and logic are like poison to Truthers.

 

 

It's not "lala" thinking.   And it wasn't *that* secret an agenda.   It was an "open conspiracy", just like Fabian Socialist H.G. Wells said.   You see, snowflake, he not only wrote a book titled ""New Words For Old: A Plain Account of Modern Socialism", but one titled "The Open Conspiracy".  And it was a blueprint for exactly what *progressive* DemocRATS in this country have doing the past century ... gradually turning the US into a socialist/communist state, right in front of everyone's nose.   And one of the members of FDR's Brain Trust ... you know, the people that helped FDR design Social Security and the New Deal ... was Fabian Socialist Stuart Chase.   He also wrote two books where he openly discussed the socialist agenda and how to achieve it in this country.      Have you read either of them, Sane?    If you haven't read them, I suggest you do.   I'd be happy to discuss their content in detail with you.   Here are their names ... "A New Deal" (1931) and "The Road We Are Traveling" (1942).   The last book is particularly interesting since it's subtitled “GUIDE LINES to America’s future”.   Here it is if you want to read it  (https://archive.org/details/TheRoadWeAreTraveling/page/n43 ) but I'll try to save you the trouble.

 

In it he laid out the plan to convert America’s free enterprise economy into what he called “X”.  He listed 18 characteristics he had observed among Russia, Germany, Italy, Japan, and Spain between 1913 and 1942. These characteristics included a strong, centralized government and an executive arm growing at the expense of the legislative and judicial arms. Read the whole chapter on “X” and you find Chase saying that we might as well accept it … that planned economies, massive central governments, autocratic rule (i.e., all the things associated with communist governments) are here to stay.  If you read the book, which I doubt you will since you seem to be having problems with anything I offer you, you will find it’s a celebration of that road.  A celebration of planned economies.  Of restraining capitalists.  Of spreading the wealth.  Of socialist thinking in general.  Of communism.   Chase is happy about all those 18 things happening in other countries and in the US … and what that portends for America’s future.  He talks in the book about the need for “change” in America, just like Obama did in 2008 and Democrats are still doing.  And it’s noteworthy that Obama put out a video in 2012 titled "The Road We've Traveled”.  Where do you think he got that phrase from?    He clearly read Chase's book and was gloating about the success that been achieved towards the ends laid out in that book.  Obama has said, since the beginning, that he wants to "transform" America … just like Chase clearly said he wanted to do.  In his book, Chase said that if enough pieces of society were fundamentally transformed into Political System X, then there would be no going back. There would be no returning to capitalism or a free market.  And that was clearly Obama's intention from day ONE.  It was FDR's as well.

 

You see, Sane, it's not a secret.   I've never said it was secret.   I've just said that Fabians have deceived the PUBLIC.   And the leftist media has helped them do it.   After the chapter in which Chase first introduced the notion of “X”, there’s a chapter titled “Goals For America.”  He says the first goal should be “to satisfy the needs and desires of the common people.”   Gee ... that sure sounds like FDR's agenda.    He says the answer to that goal is life long “security” … security provided by the government.  Isn’t that EXACTLY what every socialist/communist government and leader in history has promised “the common people”?  Isn't that exactly what FDR and his cronies were promising.   What LBJ promised?   What Obama promised?   What DemocRATS are still demanding?    Chase even talks about the “cult of the proletariat” being engulfed in this new revolution … a “revolution” “wider and deeper than anything Karl Marx imagined”, he writes.   It’s SUPER socialism he’s describing.  It’s SUPER communism. It’s Fabianism he’s describing … the same communism that Fabian Teddy Roosevelt advocated a century ago and that FDR worked to put in place years later.  The same communism that Obama glorified in speech after speech.  That Bernie is now promoting.

 

It's not secret.   It's right there out in the open.   You just aren't paying attention.   

 

There's a section in Chase's book titled “What We Must Do”.   Chase talks about “national minimum” living standards.  He says “we have had public schools for many years. It is now proposed to add food, housing, medical care, clothing, to universal education.”  He labels those things RIGHTS.  That's just what FDR said about Society Security.    If that isn’t a restatement of Marx’s “to each, according to his need” philosophy, what is?  Marx talked about free access and distribution of goods, capital and services … all provided by the government.  And he said that would be possible due to the abundance of goods and services that a developed communist system would produce. Well that is NO DIFFERENT than the goals that Chase said we should strive toward in his book. No different than the message he imparted about the new economy that he envisioned.   Like I said, Chase was a communist. And FDR gave a top job in his administration to him.   He made him a member of a very select group of people hailed by the LEFTIST media as FDR's Brain Trust.

 

At the end of the Goals chapter, Chase summarizes his platform:  First he called for full employment.  Those who can’t find work in private industry are to be EMPLOYED BY THE STATE, he said.   And if they won’t work, they are to be incarcerated in “sanatoriums”.  How Soviet.  In other words, they are to be viewed as SICK.  Next, he called for full and prudent use of material resources.   In other words, a planned economy with neither idle men or idle machinery.   Then he guaranteed five essentials to every citizen — food, housing, clothing, health services and education.  That's communism … pure and simple.  Next he added social insurance.  The government will take care of people at all stages of life, from cradle to grave.  That's exactly what the communist party was promising in the 20 and 30s in the UK where Fabianism was born.  And THAT was the agenda of FDR and his Brain Trust.   Finally, he said the government will establish labor standards.  The government will control all aspects of the work place.   Now if that isn’t a description of socialist/communist society … all prettied up … what is?  And isn't that EXACTLY what FDR proceeded to try and do during the New Deal?  You see, Sane, there was no secret to what they were doing.   The media just didn't pass what they written to each other on to the public at large.  And the public wasn't looking farther than the end of their nose and had no internet to help them discover these things.
 
And as with all socialist/communist utopias, the money to make this "X" work would … well let’s be honest … grow on trees.   Chase suggested that government would eliminate all waste (idle man years and idle production) and that would pay for all these wonderful things he envisioned.  Just the sort of pipe dream that socialists and communists have been promising the gullible for over a hundred years now.    That they are still promising the gullible.   You’d think by now, with all the failures to deliver on those promises, leftists would have realized what a pipe dream those promises are?   But no, leftists, it seems, are incapable of learning.  And thanks to Public Education and the Leftist Media, their brains are too full of memes and mush.   And both have also been successful in keeping conservatives from waking to the danger.   It is an "open conspiracy", just like HG Wells said.

 

Now in the next chapter, Chase starts out by saying the goals above are incompatible with “business as usual” and that by “business as usual” he says he means “a condition where prices are set in the open market, where hope of profit is the mainspring of new investment, and where government acts only as umpire for a system of free enterprise.”   Isn’t that exactly what a communist would say? He goes on to say “in war and peace, boom and depression, the march toward centralized, collective controls has continued.”  Aren't COLLECTIVE CONTROLS exactly what FDR's New Deal tried to put in place?  Chase was promoting collectivism … communism ... and he was an inner circle member of FDR's administration.      And he was telling readers that it's inevitable.   He admits in the book that planning has often been identified with socialism (and by that he clearly means communism as well, since he includes a number of communist countries in his list of where this planning has been taking place).  Then he tries to hide the wolf (how Fabian) by calling what he envisions a “managerial revolution” … “X” … “displacing the system of free enterprise, all over the world”.  That’s when he lists the characteristics of “X” … the ones that sound suspiciously just like a communist country.   He points out that the characteristics are “incipient in some countries”, full blown in other.   The US is one of them.   Then he says we need “X” for “community survival, which is perhaps the most fundamental good there is”.  Boy, doesn't that sound like you modern day leftists.    Now where have we heard that before? Hmmmmmmm?  Why from Obama, of course.

 

Now think about that statement for a moment  Wasn't Chase essentially saying what the Soviets said when they spoke of the “good of the people”?   The Communist Manifesto had ten essential planks:
 
• Abolition of Private Property.
• Heavy Progressive Income Tax.
• Abolition of Rights of Inheritance.
• Confiscation of Property Rights.
• Central Bank.
• Government Ownership of Communication and Transportation.
• Government Ownership of Factories and Agriculture.
• Government Control of Labor.
• Corporate Farms and Regional Planning.
• Government Control of Education.
 

I want you to tell us, Sane, how the characteristics that Chase defined for “X” differ from them?   How the characteristics of the modern Democratic Party differ from them? How what Obama worked towards differed from them.    How what Sanders and the other 19 DemocRAT candidates propose differs from them?   Because they don’t ... not in any significant way.   The Communist Manifesto was a rebellion against poverty of the lower class.  And it was no secret.    It was right out there in the open.   And so was Chase’s manifesto (his book).   Communism says everyone should “work according to their ability and give to each according to his need,” for the “common” good of society.  For the good of the people.   Therefore the State must regulate all possessions, all power, all authority, and provide the leadership for the good of the community, otherwise the individual will think selfishly. The State becomes the answer to every problem.   And that is exactly Chase’s thinking in his book. Exactly FDRs.   Exactly Obama’s.   Exactly Hillary’s.  Exactly Sanders. And unfortunately now, exactly the GOPe’s.
 
Finally, at the end of that chapter, Chase has a section titled “We Can’t Go Back”.   This is important and relevant to what I said earlier about why FDR and his cronies lied to the public about Society Security.    Like I already noted, Chase said that if enough pieces of society are transformed into Political System X, which he said had already happened because of the war and FDR’s machinations, then we would not be able to turn the ship around.   He then writes of the recommendations of The Resources Board.  The National Resources Planning Board (NRPB) is one of the agencies FDR created as part of the “New Deal” that Chase must have been most proud of, I suspect.  But to me, it was an agency that proved the basic wastefulness of big government and central planning.   The agency produced lots and lots of reports … like this 600 page one: https://www.ssa.gov/history/reports/NRPB/NRPBreport.html … with lots of recommendations.   Consider the first recommendation on page 545 of that report: “Increasing emphasis on policies aiming at the prevention of economic insecurity through a fuller utilization of our productive resources including labor, and by more comprehensive measures to improve the health of our people”  That’s just a bunch of hot air … but it reveals the thinking of communists like Chase.    Consider that phrase “our productive resources including labor.”   Workers are viewed as national resources to be manipulated and exploited by the government. And of course, when central planning doesn’t work, the solution will be more planning.  As the Depression experience proved time and time again. 
 
In Chase’s “Road We Are Traveling” book he noted that the Resources Board recommended forcing full employment with public works projects (in housing, conservation, power development, transportation).  And that would only be an “opening gun”, in his words.    He never really spells out what the next salvo will be, however.   Maybe he figured doing that might actually scare people … and Fabians generally don’t like to do that.     Just saying …

 

In any case, Sane,  Chase was an admitted Fabian Socialist (a very important one), an unabashed communist, and one of FDR's chief advisers. And not the only one. Another Fabian (i.e., communist) member of FDR’s brain trust was Walter Lippman, who at one point openly advocated that FDR become a dictator.  Lippman was influenced, presumably, by Stalin's apparent success as one. I don’t think Chase was all that averse to Stalin’s methods either. Chase toured the Soviet Union … in 1927 … and met with both Stalin and Trotsky. At that time Stalin already had more than a hundred thousand people in concentration camps. And the world knew how bloody the Russian revolution had been. Yet Chase described the Soviet Five Year Plan as a “courageous and unprecedented experiment.”  He didn't care about the blood that was shed or the political prisoners.   And by the time he wrote the "New Deal" book in 1931, Stalin had incarcerated hundreds of thousands in the formally established Gulag. Chase wrote "Why should Russians have all the fun of remaking the world?" In fact, that was the last sentence of the “New Deal” book. And FDR brought him into his administration in an important position.   It wasn't a secret conspiracy, Sane ... it was right out in the open.

 

Chase wrote in his book that “Of one thing, however, I think we can be sure. Whatever the change, it is going in the direction of more collectivism, more social control of economic activity, more government ‘interference’, less freedom for private business.” He said we “MUST employ collective action” and in fact said he sympathized with what the termed the first road, the direct and single-minded attack along the lines of what Stalin did. He even says “It may some day be inevitable in this country” and adds “I am not seriously alarmed by the sufferings of the creditor class [capitalists], the troubles which the church is bound to encounter [remember, communists are Godless and the State is their religion], the restrictions on certain kinds of freedom which must result [freedom means nothing to a communist], nor even by the bloodshed of the transition period [shooting capitalists]. A better economic order is worth a little bloodshed.” And this is a man that FDR brought into his administration … who helped guide FDR’s thinking.  And FDR is the man Obama idolized.  

 

Another of Stuart’s roads to the future (the third one) was that an aroused citizenry forces its government to revise much of its business law, to institute certain powers and controls which will attack the problem of distribution at its source, intelligently, and not too violently, and with increasing thoroughness. That certainly sounds like what Obama, Hillary and Sanders are trying to do. Chase wrote "The road to violent revolution is blocked. The road to business dictatorship (BAC - that was his second road) has mud holes and soft shoulders. Other nations may follow one or the other in the next few years, but hardly the United States. We turn to the third and last road: the drastic and progressive revision of the economic structure avoiding an utter break with the past. It must entail collectivism pushed at last to control from the top, but control over landmarks with which we are reasonably familiar."  There you have it, right out in the open.    From Chase's own mouth.   He’s describing the exact approach that the Fabian Society laid out when it was founded over a hundred years ago … the year of Marx’s death. One based on infiltrating existing government and organizations.  And note the use of the word “progressive”. Progressive is just a code word for someone who believe Fabian socialist/communist thinking, whether they know it or not.

 

Chase continues that “It may entail a temporary dictatorship; I do not know.” So again, he’s clearly showing that he’s not opposed to dictatorship. Communists never are. He just wants suckers to believe the dictatorship would be “temporary”. A wolf in sheep’s clothing. But experience proves that dictatorships are never temporary. The elite socialists and communists at the top NEVER willingly step down once they seize the reigns of power. And even Chase had to have known that. He was just being a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Deluding the unwashed masses.  AND HE WORKED FOR FDR.

 

And the next part of his book is sobering (read it carefully) because I think it describes the situation we now find ourselves in now.  He says

 

 

Chase would probably say that we are now ripe to see the third road come to fruition. That the masses of people could be convinced to accept socialism, even if it were called socialism. No more hiding is required. Hence the coming out of the Fabian Society in the UK with them proudly displaying the Fabian Wall to the public.  Hence a guy like Sanders openly running as a socialist.     Hence the DemocRAT"ic" Party's sharp turn to the left.   I think he’d probably say the masses might even accept communism, if prettied up a little to sound wonderful.  And I’m sure Chase would be all *tingly* at the prospect. Because after all, as I’ve said all along … he was a hard core communist. A Fabian Socialist.  The question is are YOU.
 

It's an amazing book, isn't it?   And I'm not done.   The next section of the book … you know, the rest of the book where Chase “mark”s the “road, first with specific goals, then with certain major agencies to achieve them” ... describes many of the things that FDR incorporated into his New Deal. Things that Obama and other modern progressives have been trying to incorporate into the fabric of America, as well. And what were some of the things Chase mentioned in the next section as specific goals?

 

- Abolishing the gold standard. Check. FDR did that.

- Using the government’s central bank to control inflation or deflation. Check. Progressives have been trying to do that for some time.

- Using the money supply to try and stop recessions. Check. Modern day leftists seem to think recessions should not occur. Capitalists know they will and must in a healthy economy.

- “Soaking the rich” (his words) through progressive taxation and inheritance taxes. Check. That’s been a major theme of leftists for a hundred years.

- Eliminating the distinction between earned and unearned income. That one is progressing with modern Democrats leading the charge.

- Confiscation of principle above a given maximum estate. That’s something being banded about in public by modern Democrats, particularly people like Sanders. Eat the Rich.

- Abandon the policy of balancing the budget every year. Check. Democrats didn’t even pass a budget during the Obama years.

- Forcing increases in wages through universal minimum wage laws.  Partially complete and on going. We’re now at $15 an hour in many cities/states and rising.

- Equalizing pay, regardless of the job. That’s on going with the left chanting why should anyone make more than someone else?

- Abolishing tariffs. That’s still on going although Trump is rolling back some of that now.

- Creation of a single foreign trade authority. Check. It’s the Commerce Department, created by Fabian Theodore Roosevelt.

- Create lotteries to fund the state. Check.  They are most prevalent in blue states.

- Try to control the economy through central planning. Started by FDR and still on going but not very successful.

- Create a National Planning Board. FDR did, although it was shut down because American’s still resisted the idea. Now government planning has been stealthily spread among various agencies including the DoD and EPA. Isn’t the government doing just that where energy is concerned?

- Government control of public works … highways, waterways, airways, public buildings, parks and playgrounds, public health, public education, food and drug inspection. Check.

- And then Chase mentions housing. That’s on going with leftists making big inroads.

- Provisions to totally regulate the work environment. Check. And just look at the mess that's made in California, for example.

- Unemployment insurance. Check.

 

As Chase said in the book’s next to last chapter, “This is the program of the third road. It is not an attempt to bolster up capitalism, it is frankly aimed at the destruction of capitalism, specifically in its most evil sense of ruthless expansion. The redistribution of national income, the sequestration of excess profits, and the control of new investment, are all designed to that end. If these methods, or others direct to the same goal, cannot restrain anarchic momentum of capitalism, there is nothing for it but wait for the precipice, striving to organize in advance the revolutionary forces which will then be liberated. Such is the Communist’s position, and from a certain philosophical point of view, there is much to be said for it.”  Now if that isn’t something spoken by a communist, I’d be very surprised. Yet FDR had him in his administration is a top position.  And modern DemocRATS still have the same overall agenda.

 

He goes on to say “The chief theoretic difference from the Marxian program lies in the matter of ownership. I agree with socialists in preferring to see the people own the chief means of production. But the title to a factory, important as it is, matters far less than the running of that factory. I believe that industry can be managed in the public interest without necessarily revolutionizing the status of the legal title.” Those are the words of a communist of the Fabian variety. One who wishes to get to utopia by a gradual and somewhat stealthy approach. Like FDR.  Like Obama.

 

And, finally, the last chapter of the book explains more about that approach. Chase says, “the intelligent minority cannot too soon set about organizing itself into shock troop units in every community in the Republics, working under a national coordinating body [the Democratic Party, I would think]. The purpose of the units is to unite like-minded people for their own education and for that of their communities on local and national economic problems. These local groups can form the nuclei for pamphleteering and for political organizations, in many cases. They will be particularly interested in making connections with local labor unions, farmers’ and consumers’ organizations, supply an outlet and a dynamic program to stimulate and unify these bodies.”  That sounds just like community organizing … the big thing amongst modern Democrats these days.  So it would appear you were wrong to dismiss me, Sane.  From what Chase wrote, it seem that communists are alive and well, and living amongst us.  And calling themselves progressives and Democratic Socialists.   And it's not secret conspiracy.  They are doing it right out in the open under everyone's CLUELESS nose.  So OPEN YOUR EYES, Sane.   STOP BEING ONE OF THOSE USEFUL IDIOTS THAT LENIN TALKED ABOUT.

 

Gee ... at this rate we'll never get to discussing the Rule of 72, Mr Finance.  :lol:

You wanna do the math on the rule of 82, whppy to f*ckn do.   You have proven you are thinking with your emotions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/2/2019 at 12:02 AM, BeAChooser said:

 

Wow ... what a lame attempt to try and dismiss what I noted.   I'm sorry, snowflake, but no one made any of that stuff up.  It's FDR's and the SSA's own words.   It's cold, crystal clear logic that you can't prove wrong.    That you can't find traction to defend FDR and his fellow Fabians from it is because there is no defense.   You and I both no that.

 

 

There is no doubt they were hardcore socialists ... Fabians to be precise, Sane.   Which makes them actually communists.   Now maybe you didn't know that.     If you're not a socialist, then you should be thanking me at this point for opening your eyes to a grand deception.   You wouldn't want to walk around an unknowingly be promoting/defending their hidden agenda.  B)

 

 

Ah ... you're down to personal attacks?   So predictable.   As I said, everything I quoted FDR or the SSA saying, they said.  Prove me wrong.   I believe I've successfully proven that they lied 15 times in selling SS to a gullible public.   Your attempt to explain away those lies failed, snowflake.   That's why you're stooping to personal attacks.    My advice is just admit I was right ... because if you can't do that, you're going to look mighty foolish when we get to discussing how much Social Security has hurt it's average contributor.

 

 

Explaining and defending the assertion that FDR and his cronies lied 15 times in selling Social Security is not something one can do in one line.    The fact it's so long is just because I thoroughly researched and though about this, Sane.   Doesn't make it wrong.

 

 

Now you're really starting to debate like a 911 Truther.   Just because you failed to prove me wrong, Sane, you accuse me of be a potential mass shooter?   That sort of statement and logic only makes it even clearer that YOU KNOW you lost this particular debate.   You just don't have the good sense to do it gracefully.   But then Truthers never do.

 

 

Again, you haven't proving ANYTHING I said wrong.   You're the one spinning now, *Mr Finance*.   Trying to find some way to cover for your stupidity in insulting me earlier.

 

 

Wow.   You're just pulling out the stops, snowflake.   I think I've triggered him using facts and solid logic, folks.   Facts and logic are like poison to Truthers.

 

 

It's not "lala" thinking.   And it wasn't *that* secret an agenda.   It was an "open conspiracy", just like Fabian Socialist H.G. Wells said.   You see, snowflake, he not only wrote a book titled ""New Words For Old: A Plain Account of Modern Socialism", but one titled "The Open Conspiracy".  And it was a blueprint for exactly what *progressive* DemocRATS in this country have doing the past century ... gradually turning the US into a socialist/communist state, right in front of everyone's nose.   And one of the members of FDR's Brain Trust ... you know, the people that helped FDR design Social Security and the New Deal ... was Fabian Socialist Stuart Chase.   He also wrote two books where he openly discussed the socialist agenda and how to achieve it in this country.      Have you read either of them, Sane?    If you haven't read them, I suggest you do.   I'd be happy to discuss their content in detail with you.   Here are their names ... "A New Deal" (1931) and "The Road We Are Traveling" (1942).   The last book is particularly interesting since it's subtitled “GUIDE LINES to America’s future”.   Here it is if you want to read it  (https://archive.org/details/TheRoadWeAreTraveling/page/n43 ) but I'll try to save you the trouble.

 

In it he laid out the plan to convert America’s free enterprise economy into what he called “X”.  He listed 18 characteristics he had observed among Russia, Germany, Italy, Japan, and Spain between 1913 and 1942. These characteristics included a strong, centralized government and an executive arm growing at the expense of the legislative and judicial arms. Read the whole chapter on “X” and you find Chase saying that we might as well accept it … that planned economies, massive central governments, autocratic rule (i.e., all the things associated with communist governments) are here to stay.  If you read the book, which I doubt you will since you seem to be having problems with anything I offer you, you will find it’s a celebration of that road.  A celebration of planned economies.  Of restraining capitalists.  Of spreading the wealth.  Of socialist thinking in general.  Of communism.   Chase is happy about all those 18 things happening in other countries and in the US … and what that portends for America’s future.  He talks in the book about the need for “change” in America, just like Obama did in 2008 and Democrats are still doing.  And it’s noteworthy that Obama put out a video in 2012 titled "The Road We've Traveled”.  Where do you think he got that phrase from?    He clearly read Chase's book and was gloating about the success that been achieved towards the ends laid out in that book.  Obama has said, since the beginning, that he wants to "transform" America … just like Chase clearly said he wanted to do.  In his book, Chase said that if enough pieces of society were fundamentally transformed into Political System X, then there would be no going back. There would be no returning to capitalism or a free market.  And that was clearly Obama's intention from day ONE.  It was FDR's as well.

 

You see, Sane, it's not a secret.   I've never said it was secret.   I've just said that Fabians have deceived the PUBLIC.   And the leftist media has helped them do it.   After the chapter in which Chase first introduced the notion of “X”, there’s a chapter titled “Goals For America.”  He says the first goal should be “to satisfy the needs and desires of the common people.”   Gee ... that sure sounds like FDR's agenda.    He says the answer to that goal is life long “security” … security provided by the government.  Isn’t that EXACTLY what every socialist/communist government and leader in history has promised “the common people”?  Isn't that exactly what FDR and his cronies were promising.   What LBJ promised?   What Obama promised?   What DemocRATS are still demanding?    Chase even talks about the “cult of the proletariat” being engulfed in this new revolution … a “revolution” “wider and deeper than anything Karl Marx imagined”, he writes.   It’s SUPER socialism he’s describing.  It’s SUPER communism. It’s Fabianism he’s describing … the same communism that Fabian Teddy Roosevelt advocated a century ago and that FDR worked to put in place years later.  The same communism that Obama glorified in speech after speech.  That Bernie is now promoting.

 

It's not secret.   It's right there out in the open.   You just aren't paying attention.   

 

There's a section in Chase's book titled “What We Must Do”.   Chase talks about “national minimum” living standards.  He says “we have had public schools for many years. It is now proposed to add food, housing, medical care, clothing, to universal education.”  He labels those things RIGHTS.  That's just what FDR said about Society Security.    If that isn’t a restatement of Marx’s “to each, according to his need” philosophy, what is?  Marx talked about free access and distribution of goods, capital and services … all provided by the government.  And he said that would be possible due to the abundance of goods and services that a developed communist system would produce. Well that is NO DIFFERENT than the goals that Chase said we should strive toward in his book. No different than the message he imparted about the new economy that he envisioned.   Like I said, Chase was a communist. And FDR gave a top job in his administration to him.   He made him a member of a very select group of people hailed by the LEFTIST media as FDR's Brain Trust.

 

At the end of the Goals chapter, Chase summarizes his platform:  First he called for full employment.  Those who can’t find work in private industry are to be EMPLOYED BY THE STATE, he said.   And if they won’t work, they are to be incarcerated in “sanatoriums”.  How Soviet.  In other words, they are to be viewed as SICK.  Next, he called for full and prudent use of material resources.   In other words, a planned economy with neither idle men or idle machinery.   Then he guaranteed five essentials to every citizen — food, housing, clothing, health services and education.  That's communism … pure and simple.  Next he added social insurance.  The government will take care of people at all stages of life, from cradle to grave.  That's exactly what the communist party was promising in the 20 and 30s in the UK where Fabianism was born.  And THAT was the agenda of FDR and his Brain Trust.   Finally, he said the government will establish labor standards.  The government will control all aspects of the work place.   Now if that isn’t a description of socialist/communist society … all prettied up … what is?  And isn't that EXACTLY what FDR proceeded to try and do during the New Deal?  You see, Sane, there was no secret to what they were doing.   The media just didn't pass what they written to each other on to the public at large.  And the public wasn't looking farther than the end of their nose and had no internet to help them discover these things.
 
And as with all socialist/communist utopias, the money to make this "X" work would … well let’s be honest … grow on trees.   Chase suggested that government would eliminate all waste (idle man years and idle production) and that would pay for all these wonderful things he envisioned.  Just the sort of pipe dream that socialists and communists have been promising the gullible for over a hundred years now.    That they are still promising the gullible.   You’d think by now, with all the failures to deliver on those promises, leftists would have realized what a pipe dream those promises are?   But no, leftists, it seems, are incapable of learning.  And thanks to Public Education and the Leftist Media, their brains are too full of memes and mush.   And both have also been successful in keeping conservatives from waking to the danger.   It is an "open conspiracy", just like HG Wells said.

 

Now in the next chapter, Chase starts out by saying the goals above are incompatible with “business as usual” and that by “business as usual” he says he means “a condition where prices are set in the open market, where hope of profit is the mainspring of new investment, and where government acts only as umpire for a system of free enterprise.”   Isn’t that exactly what a communist would say? He goes on to say “in war and peace, boom and depression, the march toward centralized, collective controls has continued.”  Aren't COLLECTIVE CONTROLS exactly what FDR's New Deal tried to put in place?  Chase was promoting collectivism … communism ... and he was an inner circle member of FDR's administration.      And he was telling readers that it's inevitable.   He admits in the book that planning has often been identified with socialism (and by that he clearly means communism as well, since he includes a number of communist countries in his list of where this planning has been taking place).  Then he tries to hide the wolf (how Fabian) by calling what he envisions a “managerial revolution” … “X” … “displacing the system of free enterprise, all over the world”.  That’s when he lists the characteristics of “X” … the ones that sound suspiciously just like a communist country.   He points out that the characteristics are “incipient in some countries”, full blown in other.   The US is one of them.   Then he says we need “X” for “community survival, which is perhaps the most fundamental good there is”.  Boy, doesn't that sound like you modern day leftists.    Now where have we heard that before? Hmmmmmmm?  Why from Obama, of course.

 

Now think about that statement for a moment  Wasn't Chase essentially saying what the Soviets said when they spoke of the “good of the people”?   The Communist Manifesto had ten essential planks:
 
• Abolition of Private Property.
• Heavy Progressive Income Tax.
• Abolition of Rights of Inheritance.
• Confiscation of Property Rights.
• Central Bank.
• Government Ownership of Communication and Transportation.
• Government Ownership of Factories and Agriculture.
• Government Control of Labor.
• Corporate Farms and Regional Planning.
• Government Control of Education.
 

I want you to tell us, Sane, how the characteristics that Chase defined for “X” differ from them?   How the characteristics of the modern Democratic Party differ from them? How what Obama worked towards differed from them.    How what Sanders and the other 19 DemocRAT candidates propose differs from them?   Because they don’t ... not in any significant way.   The Communist Manifesto was a rebellion against poverty of the lower class.  And it was no secret.    It was right out there in the open.   And so was Chase’s manifesto (his book).   Communism says everyone should “work according to their ability and give to each according to his need,” for the “common” good of society.  For the good of the people.   Therefore the State must regulate all possessions, all power, all authority, and provide the leadership for the good of the community, otherwise the individual will think selfishly. The State becomes the answer to every problem.   And that is exactly Chase’s thinking in his book. Exactly FDRs.   Exactly Obama’s.   Exactly Hillary’s.  Exactly Sanders. And unfortunately now, exactly the GOPe’s.
 
Finally, at the end of that chapter, Chase has a section titled “We Can’t Go Back”.   This is important and relevant to what I said earlier about why FDR and his cronies lied to the public about Society Security.    Like I already noted, Chase said that if enough pieces of society are transformed into Political System X, which he said had already happened because of the war and FDR’s machinations, then we would not be able to turn the ship around.   He then writes of the recommendations of The Resources Board.  The National Resources Planning Board (NRPB) is one of the agencies FDR created as part of the “New Deal” that Chase must have been most proud of, I suspect.  But to me, it was an agency that proved the basic wastefulness of big government and central planning.   The agency produced lots and lots of reports … like this 600 page one: https://www.ssa.gov/history/reports/NRPB/NRPBreport.html … with lots of recommendations.   Consider the first recommendation on page 545 of that report: “Increasing emphasis on policies aiming at the prevention of economic insecurity through a fuller utilization of our productive resources including labor, and by more comprehensive measures to improve the health of our people”  That’s just a bunch of hot air … but it reveals the thinking of communists like Chase.    Consider that phrase “our productive resources including labor.”   Workers are viewed as national resources to be manipulated and exploited by the government. And of course, when central planning doesn’t work, the solution will be more planning.  As the Depression experience proved time and time again. 
 
In Chase’s “Road We Are Traveling” book he noted that the Resources Board recommended forcing full employment with public works projects (in housing, conservation, power development, transportation).  And that would only be an “opening gun”, in his words.    He never really spells out what the next salvo will be, however.   Maybe he figured doing that might actually scare people … and Fabians generally don’t like to do that.     Just saying …

 

In any case, Sane,  Chase was an admitted Fabian Socialist (a very important one), an unabashed communist, and one of FDR's chief advisers. And not the only one. Another Fabian (i.e., communist) member of FDR’s brain trust was Walter Lippman, who at one point openly advocated that FDR become a dictator.  Lippman was influenced, presumably, by Stalin's apparent success as one. I don’t think Chase was all that averse to Stalin’s methods either. Chase toured the Soviet Union … in 1927 … and met with both Stalin and Trotsky. At that time Stalin already had more than a hundred thousand people in concentration camps. And the world knew how bloody the Russian revolution had been. Yet Chase described the Soviet Five Year Plan as a “courageous and unprecedented experiment.”  He didn't care about the blood that was shed or the political prisoners.   And by the time he wrote the "New Deal" book in 1931, Stalin had incarcerated hundreds of thousands in the formally established Gulag. Chase wrote "Why should Russians have all the fun of remaking the world?" In fact, that was the last sentence of the “New Deal” book. And FDR brought him into his administration in an important position.   It wasn't a secret conspiracy, Sane ... it was right out in the open.

 

Chase wrote in his book that “Of one thing, however, I think we can be sure. Whatever the change, it is going in the direction of more collectivism, more social control of economic activity, more government ‘interference’, less freedom for private business.” He said we “MUST employ collective action” and in fact said he sympathized with what the termed the first road, the direct and single-minded attack along the lines of what Stalin did. He even says “It may some day be inevitable in this country” and adds “I am not seriously alarmed by the sufferings of the creditor class [capitalists], the troubles which the church is bound to encounter [remember, communists are Godless and the State is their religion], the restrictions on certain kinds of freedom which must result [freedom means nothing to a communist], nor even by the bloodshed of the transition period [shooting capitalists]. A better economic order is worth a little bloodshed.” And this is a man that FDR brought into his administration … who helped guide FDR’s thinking.  And FDR is the man Obama idolized.  

 

Another of Stuart’s roads to the future (the third one) was that an aroused citizenry forces its government to revise much of its business law, to institute certain powers and controls which will attack the problem of distribution at its source, intelligently, and not too violently, and with increasing thoroughness. That certainly sounds like what Obama, Hillary and Sanders are trying to do. Chase wrote "The road to violent revolution is blocked. The road to business dictatorship (BAC - that was his second road) has mud holes and soft shoulders. Other nations may follow one or the other in the next few years, but hardly the United States. We turn to the third and last road: the drastic and progressive revision of the economic structure avoiding an utter break with the past. It must entail collectivism pushed at last to control from the top, but control over landmarks with which we are reasonably familiar."  There you have it, right out in the open.    From Chase's own mouth.   He’s describing the exact approach that the Fabian Society laid out when it was founded over a hundred years ago … the year of Marx’s death. One based on infiltrating existing government and organizations.  And note the use of the word “progressive”. Progressive is just a code word for someone who believe Fabian socialist/communist thinking, whether they know it or not.

 

Chase continues that “It may entail a temporary dictatorship; I do not know.” So again, he’s clearly showing that he’s not opposed to dictatorship. Communists never are. He just wants suckers to believe the dictatorship would be “temporary”. A wolf in sheep’s clothing. But experience proves that dictatorships are never temporary. The elite socialists and communists at the top NEVER willingly step down once they seize the reigns of power. And even Chase had to have known that. He was just being a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Deluding the unwashed masses.  AND HE WORKED FOR FDR.

 

And the next part of his book is sobering (read it carefully) because I think it describes the situation we now find ourselves in now.  He says

 

 

Chase would probably say that we are now ripe to see the third road come to fruition. That the masses of people could be convinced to accept socialism, even if it were called socialism. No more hiding is required. Hence the coming out of the Fabian Society in the UK with them proudly displaying the Fabian Wall to the public.  Hence a guy like Sanders openly running as a socialist.     Hence the DemocRAT"ic" Party's sharp turn to the left.   I think he’d probably say the masses might even accept communism, if prettied up a little to sound wonderful.  And I’m sure Chase would be all *tingly* at the prospect. Because after all, as I’ve said all along … he was a hard core communist. A Fabian Socialist.  The question is are YOU.
 

It's an amazing book, isn't it?   And I'm not done.   The next section of the book … you know, the rest of the book where Chase “mark”s the “road, first with specific goals, then with certain major agencies to achieve them” ... describes many of the things that FDR incorporated into his New Deal. Things that Obama and other modern progressives have been trying to incorporate into the fabric of America, as well. And what were some of the things Chase mentioned in the next section as specific goals?

 

- Abolishing the gold standard. Check. FDR did that.

- Using the government’s central bank to control inflation or deflation. Check. Progressives have been trying to do that for some time.

- Using the money supply to try and stop recessions. Check. Modern day leftists seem to think recessions should not occur. Capitalists know they will and must in a healthy economy.

- “Soaking the rich” (his words) through progressive taxation and inheritance taxes. Check. That’s been a major theme of leftists for a hundred years.

- Eliminating the distinction between earned and unearned income. That one is progressing with modern Democrats leading the charge.

- Confiscation of principle above a given maximum estate. That’s something being banded about in public by modern Democrats, particularly people like Sanders. Eat the Rich.

- Abandon the policy of balancing the budget every year. Check. Democrats didn’t even pass a budget during the Obama years.

- Forcing increases in wages through universal minimum wage laws.  Partially complete and on going. We’re now at $15 an hour in many cities/states and rising.

- Equalizing pay, regardless of the job. That’s on going with the left chanting why should anyone make more than someone else?

- Abolishing tariffs. That’s still on going although Trump is rolling back some of that now.

- Creation of a single foreign trade authority. Check. It’s the Commerce Department, created by Fabian Theodore Roosevelt.

- Create lotteries to fund the state. Check.  They are most prevalent in blue states.

- Try to control the economy through central planning. Started by FDR and still on going but not very successful.

- Create a National Planning Board. FDR did, although it was shut down because American’s still resisted the idea. Now government planning has been stealthily spread among various agencies including the DoD and EPA. Isn’t the government doing just that where energy is concerned?

- Government control of public works … highways, waterways, airways, public buildings, parks and playgrounds, public health, public education, food and drug inspection. Check.

- And then Chase mentions housing. That’s on going with leftists making big inroads.

- Provisions to totally regulate the work environment. Check. And just look at the mess that's made in California, for example.

- Unemployment insurance. Check.

 

As Chase said in the book’s next to last chapter, “This is the program of the third road. It is not an attempt to bolster up capitalism, it is frankly aimed at the destruction of capitalism, specifically in its most evil sense of ruthless expansion. The redistribution of national income, the sequestration of excess profits, and the control of new investment, are all designed to that end. If these methods, or others direct to the same goal, cannot restrain anarchic momentum of capitalism, there is nothing for it but wait for the precipice, striving to organize in advance the revolutionary forces which will then be liberated. Such is the Communist’s position, and from a certain philosophical point of view, there is much to be said for it.”  Now if that isn’t something spoken by a communist, I’d be very surprised. Yet FDR had him in his administration is a top position.  And modern DemocRATS still have the same overall agenda.

 

He goes on to say “The chief theoretic difference from the Marxian program lies in the matter of ownership. I agree with socialists in preferring to see the people own the chief means of production. But the title to a factory, important as it is, matters far less than the running of that factory. I believe that industry can be managed in the public interest without necessarily revolutionizing the status of the legal title.” Those are the words of a communist of the Fabian variety. One who wishes to get to utopia by a gradual and somewhat stealthy approach. Like FDR.  Like Obama.

 

And, finally, the last chapter of the book explains more about that approach. Chase says, “the intelligent minority cannot too soon set about organizing itself into shock troop units in every community in the Republics, working under a national coordinating body [the Democratic Party, I would think]. The purpose of the units is to unite like-minded people for their own education and for that of their communities on local and national economic problems. These local groups can form the nuclei for pamphleteering and for political organizations, in many cases. They will be particularly interested in making connections with local labor unions, farmers’ and consumers’ organizations, supply an outlet and a dynamic program to stimulate and unify these bodies.”  That sounds just like community organizing … the big thing amongst modern Democrats these days.  So it would appear you were wrong to dismiss me, Sane.  From what Chase wrote, it seem that communists are alive and well, and living amongst us.  And calling themselves progressives and Democratic Socialists.   And it's not secret conspiracy.  They are doing it right out in the open under everyone's CLUELESS nose.  So OPEN YOUR EYES, Sane.   STOP BEING ONE OF THOSE USEFUL IDIOTS THAT LENIN TALKED ABOUT.

 

Gee ... at this rate we'll never get to discussing the Rule of 72, Mr Finance.  :lol:

I'm serious.  You need help.  Look at the time you put into this snowflake.  Really.  Have you ever heard of Cult of Personality?  Rush has you by the balls snowflake.  This delusion you are living (and the shared psychosis of you fellow brainwashed) is going to explode.  The right wing nut media is grown past its value to the Republicans.  They are getting to the point (even these assh*les) were they release the poison they are feeding you and the rest of the ilk is going to destroy the country.  

To your point, if there is one.  You should know that the portion of FICA that is specific to Social Security is 3%.  I don't hear you hate mongering on medicare.  You're probably one of those who wants government to keep there hands off of there medicare.  Maybe not.  I may be being a little hard on you, but you are part of the problem.  

Government should be run like a business.  We would get a lot of sh*t accomplished at half the cost.  The problem is how things are executed.  The fraud, waste, and abuse is disgusting.  We will spend 5k for a toilet seat.  No 1,500 toilet seats that sit in a warehouse.  We spend a sh*t on of money to protect, yet a 4 year old can't watch big bird.  You don't need a degree in Finance to know your getting bent over the table and people are laughing at you snowflake.  Hopefully a third party will emerge and leave you assh*les with the shells of the other 2 parties.  It won't happen, but god I wish it would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Sane said:

You wanna do the math on the rule of 82, whppy to f*ckn do.   You have proven you are thinking with your emotions.

 

Sure I am, snowflake.   Any more excuses you want to dream up to explain your running from defending FDR and this debate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Sane said:

I'm serious.  You need help.  Look at the time you put into this snowflake. 

 

Not that much time, snowflake.   I've been pondering this for some time.   Look back and you'll see the slow progression of my argument to the current state.

 

Indeed, every time I confront one of you snowflakes, something else gets discovered and added.   That's why I warned you in the beginning I'd clean your plate on this issue.

 

9 hours ago, Sane said:

Rush has you by the balls snowflake.

 

You show me where Rush Limbaugh has EVER talked about Fabian socialism, Sane.  Bet you can't.

 

9 hours ago, Sane said:

This delusion you are living (and the shared psychosis of you fellow brainwashed) is going to explode.

 

What's delusion.  You haven't disproven a single thing I noted.   Let's face it ... you can't even face what a single book by one of FDR's top advisors reveals.   I bet your too timid/fearful to even read it, even though I provide you a link to it.   I understand.   Coming face to face with all the lies you've been fed (and believed) over the years has to be rough.

 

 

9 hours ago, Sane said:

To your point, if there is one.

 

You really haven't been paying attention, if you think I haven't a point, snowflake.

 

9 hours ago, Sane said:

I don't hear you hate mongering on medicare.

 

Then again you haven't been paying attention.   How many times have I posted to the forum that even Obama warned that Medicare was threatening to bankrupt the government.   How many times have I noted that the unfunded liability of Social Security is small compared to the unfunded liability of Medicare.    Pay attention, Sane.

 

9 hours ago, Sane said:

You're probably one of those who wants government to keep there hands off of there medicare.

 

False statements like that aren't going to get you out of the pickle you've created for yourself on this display ... all because you decided to be "Mr Finance" and insult me.

 

9 hours ago, Sane said:

Government should be run like a business.  We would get a lot of sh*t accomplished at half the cost.  The problem is how things are executed.  The fraud, waste, and abuse is disgusting.  We will spend 5k for a toilet seat.

 

And yet you and your ilk want to give a socialist government even more money and control over your life.  

 

Yet you want to do away with the market and replace it with government planning and bureaucrats in Washington making the decisions.

 

Don't you see the disconnect in that, Sane?  

 

Or has the dishonest rhetoric and demagoguery of the FDRs and Obama's of the world destroyed your common sense completely?

 

9 hours ago, Sane said:

Hopefully a third party will emerge and leave you assh*les with the shells of the other 2 parties. 

 

You're not interested in a third party.   Not if you're defending FDR.  And you just don't get it.  Trump is the third party at this point.   The GOPe is just as much a problem as DemocRATS.   Because BOTH have been subsumed by the Fabian Socialists in their century long plot to take over the US government and convert it to society "X".  Just saying ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/3/2019 at 11:33 PM, BeAChooser said:

 

Not that much time, snowflake.   I've been pondering this for some time.   Look back and you'll see the slow progression of my argument to the current state.

 

Indeed, every time I confront one of you snowflakes, something else gets discovered and added.   That's why I warned you in the beginning I'd clean your plate on this issue.

 

 

You show me where Rush Limbaugh has EVER talked about Fabian socialism, Sane.  Bet you can't.

 

 

What's delusion.  You haven't disproven a single thing I noted.   Let's face it ... you can't even face what a single book by one of FDR's top advisors reveals.   I bet your too timid/fearful to even read it, even though I provide you a link to it.   I understand.   Coming face to face with all the lies you've been fed (and believed) over the years has to be rough.

 

 

 

You really haven't been paying attention, if you think I haven't a point, snowflake.

 

 

Then again you haven't been paying attention.   How many times have I posted to the forum that even Obama warned that Medicare was threatening to bankrupt the government.   How many times have I noted that the unfunded liability of Social Security is small compared to the unfunded liability of Medicare.    Pay attention, Sane.

 

 

False statements like that aren't going to get you out of the pickle you've created for yourself on this display ... all because you decided to be "Mr Finance" and insult me.

 

 

And yet you and your ilk want to give a socialist government even more money and control over your life.  

 

Yet you want to do away with the market and replace it with government planning and bureaucrats in Washington making the decisions.

 

Don't you see the disconnect in that, Sane?  

 

Or has the dishonest rhetoric and demagoguery of the FDRs and Obama's of the world destroyed your common sense completely?

 

 

You're not interested in a third party.   Not if you're defending FDR.  And you just don't get it.  Trump is the third party at this point.   The GOPe is just as much a problem as DemocRATS.   Because BOTH have been subsumed by the Fabian Socialists in their century long plot to take over the US government and convert it to society "X".  Just saying ...

Good morning you psychotic tampon.  You only listen assh*les and soak up anything they tell you.  Cause you're smart.  No sh*t you've spent "a lot of time" becoming a mindless tool.  You are beyond help.  You believe the sky is red and no one is going to tell you any different.  Logic and facts are not something you are capable of seeing.  You're right, FDR needed to make it a constitutional amendment know the low life right wing and their fascist (fascism coming to a red state near you) freedom hating agenda.  Would skull f*ck the poor for tax cuts for themselves leaving the original plan bankrupt.  My guess, you're the one being bent over.  The sad thing is you don't realize it.  You blame the people who tried to help you cause you're smart.  You only proved you are beyond help.  That's it, smart guy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sane said:

Good morning you psychotic tampon.  You only listen assh*les and soak up anything they tell you.  Cause you're smart.  No sh*t you've spent "a lot of time" becoming a mindless tool.  You are beyond help.  You believe the sky is red and no one is going to tell you any different.  Logic and facts are not something you are capable of seeing.  You're right, FDR needed to make it a constitutional amendment know the low life right wing and their fascist (fascism coming to a red state near you) freedom hating agenda.  Would skull f*ck the poor for tax cuts for themselves leaving the original plan bankrupt.  My guess, you're the one being bent over.  The sad thing is you don't realize it.  You blame the people who tried to help you cause you're smart.  You only proved you are beyond help.  That's it, smart guy. 

Lying and crying once again^^^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Sane said:

Good morning you psychotic tampon.  You only listen assh*les and soak up anything they tell you.

 

LOL!  Looks like the phrase Fabian Socialism, the name Stuart Chase, and what I noted about his book "The Road We Are Traveling" really triggered poor Sane.  

 

Quote

You are beyond help.

 

And it looks like he's now running as a result.

 

Quote

You believe the sky is red and no one is going to tell you any different.  Logic and facts are not something you are capable of seeing.

 

pogorocks should look in a mirror, don't you think, folks?    

 

After all, I've shown on this thread that I'm more than willing to actually debate the facts and logic.  

 

I've carefully presented both ... and responded to anything he's posted in a logical and fact filled manner.    

 

He's the one now running ... the one spewing foul language, ad hominems, and strawmen in irrational emotion laden posts.  

 

While pretending he's presented undeniable facts and logic ... which he hasn't. 

 

Rather laughable, isn't it?

 

Quote

You're right, FDR needed to make it a constitutional amendment know the low life right wing and their fascist (fascism coming to a red state near you) freedom hating agenda.  Would skull f*ck the poor for tax cuts for themselves leaving the original plan bankrupt.  My guess, you're the one being bent over.  The sad thing is you don't realize it.  You blame the people who tried to help you cause you're smart.  You only proved you are beyond help.  That's it, smart guy. 

 

Yep.   I really triggered him, didn't I?

 

Leaving him no alternative but to get really personal and irrational in his attacks.

 

Leaving him to debate like a Truther.

 

 :lol:

 

PS ... I guess he didn't want to talk about the Rule of 72 and it's implications for SS contributors after all.   :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BeAChooser said:

 

LOL!  Looks like the phrase Fabian Socialism, the name Stuart Chase, and what I noted about his book "The Road We Are Traveling" really triggered poor Sane.  

 

 

And it looks like he's now running as a result.

 

 

pogorocks should look in a mirror, don't you think, folks?    

 

After all, I've shown on this thread that I'm more than willing to actually debate the facts and logic.  

 

I've carefully presented both ... and responded to anything he's posted in a logical and fact filled manner.    

 

He's the one now running ... the one spewing foul language, ad hominems, and strawmen in irrational emotion laden posts.  

 

While pretending he's presented undeniable facts and logic ... which he hasn't. 

 

Rather laughable, isn't it?

 

 

Yep.   I really triggered him, didn't I?

 

Leaving him no alternative but to get really personal and irrational in his attacks.

 

Leaving him to debate like a Truther.

 

 :lol:

 

PS ... I guess he didn't want to talk about the Rule of 72 and it's implications for SS contributors after all.   :D

Insane lied and tried to claim I stated Marxism was based on supply and demand.....She's likely a small business accountant that "thinks" she actually understands economics but clearly doesn't;t understand even the simplest principles. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I notice that I accidentally called Sane pogorocks in the above post.   My mistake but, truth be told, is there any real difference?  B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/7/2019 at 9:59 PM, BeAChooser said:

 

LOL!  Looks like the phrase Fabian Socialism, the name Stuart Chase, and what I noted about his book "The Road We Are Traveling" really triggered poor Sane.  

 

 

And it looks like he's now running as a result.

 

 

pogorocks should look in a mirror, don't you think, folks?    

 

After all, I've shown on this thread that I'm more than willing to actually debate the facts and logic.  

 

I've carefully presented both ... and responded to anything he's posted in a logical and fact filled manner.    

 

He's the one now running ... the one spewing foul language, ad hominems, and strawmen in irrational emotion laden posts.  

 

While pretending he's presented undeniable facts and logic ... which he hasn't. 

 

Rather laughable, isn't it?

 

 

Yep.   I really triggered him, didn't I?

 

Leaving him no alternative but to get really personal and irrational in his attacks.

 

Leaving him to debate like a Truther.

 

 :lol:

 

PS ... I guess he didn't want to talk about the Rule of 72 and it's implications for SS contributors after all.   :D

Look at who thinks he knows sh*t.  Tell me.  Factory worker or just rural sh*t bag?  You wouldn't have saved sh*t.  So it wouldn't matter.  If you did, your dumb ass wouldn't ebb and flow with the market so....  If you have a 401K.  I bet you lost your ass during the Great Recession.  Go ahead blaber.  Do me a favor.  When you show up to shot up a school with your MAGA hat on.  Give me a nod when they take you into custody.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sane said:

Look at who thinks he knows sh*t.  Tell me.  Factory worker or just rural sh*t bag?  You wouldn't have saved sh*t.    So it wouldn't matter.  If you did, your dumb ass wouldn't ebb and flow with the market so....  If you have a 401K.  I bet you lost your ass during the Great Recession.  Go ahead blaber.  Do me a favor.  When you show up to shot up a school with your MAGA hat on.  Give me a nod when they take you into custody.  

 

LOL!  I certainly did trigger him, didn't I?   :lol:

 

I tell you what ... let's see what *Mr Finance* does with this (it's something I've previously posted to the forum) ...

 

******************

 

Have you ever heard of the Rule of 72?   It’s a formula for figuring out how quickly money will double if left alone in an interest bearing account. You divide 72 by the interest rate and that tells you the number of years needed to make the money double. We can use that rule to determine what a lower quintile earner (the ones getting the most out of SS) would get back, if he’d put his SS contributions into an S&P Index fund and left it there over the years. 
 
Historically, the S&P has averaged 7-11 percent returns every year since 1928 ( http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/histretSP.html ). So the rule of 72 says that on average, money in an S&P index fund will double in just 7-10 years. So if our hypothetical lower quintile earners had left their first 7 years SS contributions in an S&P Index for 49 years (to retirement age), that first 7 years contribution would have doubled, and doubled, and doubled, and doubled and doubled and doubled and doubled … so that today, they would get back 128 TIMES what they contributed in that first 7 years. 128 TIMES. And even their contributions the last 7 years would be worth more than double what they put in. So you can see how much SS has cheated them over the years. Made them poorer. And this example applies to the lowest earning quintile just as much as the highest earning quintile. Think about that. Think about all that has been lost from people's lives because of that.
 
If you stupidly don’t trust an S&P index fund, then what if our bottom quintile person had just bought 10 year T-Bills from the government? You would trust that investment vehicle, wouldn't you?  Investment can’t be any safer or easier than that, right? After all, that’s where the government supposedly puts it’s excess SS contributions. Right? Well, the average return from 10 year T-Bills has been 4-7 percent over the years ( http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/histretSP.html). So that lowest quintile earner’s money would have doubled ever 10-18 years meaning that in 49 years, the money from that first contribution period would now be worth 3-5 times what it was when contributed. Not just double. And even the last 10-18 years worth of contributions would be worth more than double. You can check it out yourself using the data in the above link. Again, the lowest quintile contributor to SS, who by far gets more of his contributions back from SS than any other quintile, is clearly being cheated by SS because he’s going to get back less than double what he put into SS and that didn’t have to be the case. This isn’t rocket science ... you only have to pay attention.
 
And unlike a guy who got to invest his own money and still owns it, the SS contributor doesn’t own his contributions. He is completely at the mercy of the government to give him what are essentially subsistence dollars ... and they can reduce that or take it away at the stroke of a pen. The Supreme Court said so, as I have proven in many posts to this forum ... including posts to that idiot, merrill.  YOU don't own your SS contributions, Bluenami Mr Finance.  You may think you do but you don't.   YOU have no right to SS payments. NO RIGHT. The Supreme Court said so. In addition, the now poorer SS sap also can’t gift the contents of his “account” to the next generation … or give it to charity even. Because he doesn’t own it. But the man who bought an S&P index fund or T-Bills instead can. SS is a liberal scam being used to the keep the populace poor and dependent.
 
Now, I’m sure your next complaint will be “what about the risk of downturns in the market?”   That's the objection ALWAYS voiced by defenders of SS.   Well, here’s the way I might have set up my own private alternative to avoid that risk had I been allowed to do so many years ago. It's something that ANYONE could do. This example is from a post I made to former poster shintao years ago, which was, in fact, taken from what I posted to former poster Protectionist way back in 2011 when I discussed this with him on this forum. You can see, I’ve been thinking about this for many years.
 
My private alternative is a very easy to understand market investment strategy that ANYONE could use that would be just as safe as anything the SS system now offers, would require no expertise on their part (in fact, the SS administration could have set this up for contributors), and would make them many times what SS now provides them at retirement.  And at the same time, they'd OWN any remaining assets at death and be able to gift it to whoever they wanted upon their death. Plus, they'd be protected from those periodic market downturns that you leftists like to use to scare gullible people into supporting the scam SS system.  I dare you to find any fault with it, Bluenami Mr Finance.
 
Here is what I proposed back in 2011 (I won’t redo the calculations to the present because the conclusion would be the same and it was a lot of work).
 

Quote

Consider a specific example from the SSA website (http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10070.html ) ... that of a person (let's say a man) who is born in 1950 and retired at the age of 62 this year. He started work at the age of 18 and worked 43 years. The SSA website shows how to calculate what that person would get on a monthly basis now, based on earnings each year since 1968. Assuming the maximum SS earnings that were allowed in each year, I built a spreadsheet to do the calculation and it turns out that the SS system would pay that person $1874 per month starting at age 62 (this year).

 
Now, what if that person had taken his and his employer's contributions to SS over those years and instead put them to work in the stock market? To be on the safe side, I would invest each year's contributions into the S&P 500 stock index. That's a VERY conservative investment. One isn't allowed to put the money into individual stocks, but must spread the risk out over all the companies in the S&P 500. Now let's face it, if what are basically 500 of the largest companies in America fail, can anything … even the US government … be far behind? For all practical purposes, the S&P 500 over any reasonable length of time is just as sure, just as secure, as the Federal government. Seriously.

 
Now how much goes into this account? The SS tax rates have varied over the years (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html ). In 1968, the percent of earnings that one (plus one's employer) had to contribute to the SS system was 7.7% of taxable earnings, up to the maximums listed above in the first link. Which means a contribution of $601 in 1968, given the maximum SS earnings at that time of $7800. In 1969 it was 8.4% which meant a contribution of $655 on a maximum SS earnings of $7800. And so forth.

 
I built another spreadsheet and placed this information in it for each year from 1968 to 2011. I then added to the spreadsheet the historical returns of the S&P index fund for each year over that time (from http://historicalreturns-sp500.blogspot.com/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S&P_500 ). Then I used the spreadsheet to value the account each year marching forward from 1968 to 2011, assuming all losses came from the account and all gains went back into the account. The result is that the account would be worth $1.64 MILLION dollars today! That's my nest egg instead of Social Security. Now let's see if I can retire on it and live as well as the fellow getting a check for $1874 each month from the government courtesy of Democrats.

 
Here's what I do. I take out $224880 from my nest egg and put it in a local bank's checking account. That way I can write myself a $1874 check each month for the next 10 years, exactly what I'd expect get from Uncle Sam during that time. Heck, make it $449760 in the account so I can live twice as well as that poorer SS fellow. The rest of the money goes into the S&P index fund where it will historically earn 7 to 11 percent a year. The beauty of doing it this way is that I not only get the high average returns of the market but am protected from market downturns. I'll never have to pull money out during a down market because I'm living off a stash of money that I'm keeping in a checking account. Most market downturns don't last more than a year or two, so as I approach year 7 or 8, I will time the selling of a portion of the S&P index fund during the next good market, not a downturn, to give me another 10 years of cash safely in the bank.
 
Alternately, for those who still insist on shying away from the stock market, I could take the rest of the money ($1.19 million) and put it in T-Bills, instead. What could be safer? Right? Afterall, that's where we are told the non-existent SS trust funds are *invested*. So I'll just do the same. (It's not what I'd really do, but I'll play along with liberal stupidity this once.) The 10 year yield for a T-Bill back when I first suggested this to Protectionist was (using http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=yield ) a little over 2%. So that's what my $1.19 million would be earning.
 
Now let move forward almost 10 years (no need to worry about avoiding downturns during that time because you just ride them out). My savings account is now almost gone so it's time to restore it. But boy have I been living a nicer life than the poor sucker who is living off his $1874 Social Security check. My 10 Year T-Bill's have reached maturity. They made 2% per year. So that account is now worth $1.45 million. I take $449760 from that and put it in my checking account. Once again, I'm totally protected from downturns for the next 8 or so years. What's left ($1.0 million) goes back into a 10 year T-bill. Let's just assume that 10 year T-bills are still getting just 2%. It will probably be higher since they are tied to inflation and inflation is bound to go up thanks to Obama. (Currently the 10 years T-Bill rate is 2.4%, by the way.)
 
Another 10 years passes and I've been living the life of Reilly (while that sucker on Social Security is still watching every penny). My 10 year T-Bills reach maturity and are now worth $1.22 million. Take another $449760 from that. The rest ($771,000) goes back into 10 year T-Bills.
 
Another 10 years passes. I'm still living twice the life of that poor SS sucker. Better food. Better clothing. Better housing. Better cars. Better vacations. Better everything. It’s amazing what money can buy. And I haven't been stressing about my finances, like him, so I may even live longer. Now my T-Bill account is worth (still assuming 2%) $940,000.

 
I repeat the same process putting $492,000 back into T-Bills. Another 10 years goes by. By now the SS chap is probably long expired (due to his subsistence living and being forced to depend on Obamacare), but I'm still … well, I'm 102 years old and still enjoying life. On a beach in Tahiti. But to be honest I probably don't have that many years left. Good thing, because my current nest egg is … let me check … just $594,850. Hey … maybe I will live to 112. But if not, my relatives get a nice estate. Or a charity gets a nice donation. The SS fellow's relatives or favorite charity are out of luck.

 
And here's the kicker. I can do MUCH better than that and still be very secure. I could, for example, leave half the original nest egg ($820,000) in the S&P Index fund and let it continue to grow for another 20 years at the historical 6.8% after inflation. If I did that, that portion would likely be worth $3 MILLION DOLLARS in inflation adjusted dollars when I was only 82 years old. Imagine what my life would be like then, compared to that poor, stupid, social security victim of liberal agendas? Imagine what my children's lives would be like with THAT as an estate to give them?


And there you have it. The above approach clearly protects one from market downturns. And it gives back to the person MANY times what they would currently get from SS. And it's just as secure as the Federal government's SS *trust fund*. Arguably, even more secure, since it's real. And in the end it allows the owner to give what's left to their children or charity. And it's very easy to implement. No need to pick out the good stocks or risk anything in something that isn’t going to go up in a few years time. And even the SSA, stupid as it is, could probably manage to run this efficiently. So why would any of you leftists continue to defend SS? If all that leftists can do in response to this post (and all the ones before it) is keep trying to needlessly, and dishonestly, scare people ... and lie ... and obfuscate ... and then run, what's that say? When all is said and done, I think leftists appear to want people to remain poor and dependent ... on them, of course ... on Democrats/progressives/socialists/communists.  Whereas I, and many Republicans of like mind, are trying to free them from such people ... from socialists and communists who are literally stealing from them ... even the poorest of them … just to garner more power for their political party.  Leftists want to keep them enslaved. And that should make the people (ESPECIALLY young people) very, very, very angry now. Because the left is literally stealing their futures and they need to recognize that fact if they ever want to have one.
 
By the way, I fully understand the desire for helping the needy that the millennials are voicing. And I say this to them … we could have given the legitimately unemployed, aged, needy, blind and dependent the same amount of money that we did as pure and compassionate welfare (nothing wrong with that) and taken the rest of what we gave SSA over the years and truly invested it in very secure instruments … like T-Bills or the S&P index fund … and be far better off today. Nearly all of us. I’ve proven this over and over to {crickets} from the leftists on this and other forums countless times. And instead of acknowledging that, the leftists keep defending the status quo ... the system that is so obviously impoverishing all of us. The system that will take away our and our children's future. Wake up millennials. Wake up, Bluenami Mr Finance. If you don't believe me, do the math yourself. It's not that hard.
 
******************
 

Ball is back in your court, Sane.  :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, BeAChooser said:

 

LOL!  I certainly did trigger him, didn't I?   :lol:

 

I tell you what ... let's see what *Mr Finance* does with this (it's something I've previously posted to the forum) ...

 

******************

 

Have you ever heard of the Rule of 72?   It’s a formula for figuring out how quickly money will double if left alone in an interest bearing account. You divide 72 by the interest rate and that tells you the number of years needed to make the money double. We can use that rule to determine what a lower quintile earner (the ones getting the most out of SS) would get back, if he’d put his SS contributions into an S&P Index fund and left it there over the years. 
 
Historically, the S&P has averaged 7-11 percent returns every year since 1928 ( http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/histretSP.html ). So the rule of 72 says that on average, money in an S&P index fund will double in just 7-10 years. So if our hypothetical lower quintile earners had left their first 7 years SS contributions in an S&P Index for 49 years (to retirement age), that first 7 years contribution would have doubled, and doubled, and doubled, and doubled and doubled and doubled and doubled … so that today, they would get back 128 TIMES what they contributed in that first 7 years. 128 TIMES. And even their contributions the last 7 years would be worth more than double what they put in. So you can see how much SS has cheated them over the years. Made them poorer. And this example applies to the lowest earning quintile just as much as the highest earning quintile. Think about that. Think about all that has been lost from people's lives because of that.
 
If you stupidly don’t trust an S&P index fund, then what if our bottom quintile person had just bought 10 year T-Bills from the government? You would trust that investment vehicle, wouldn't you?  Investment can’t be any safer or easier than that, right? After all, that’s where the government supposedly puts it’s excess SS contributions. Right? Well, the average return from 10 year T-Bills has been 4-7 percent over the years ( http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/histretSP.html). So that lowest quintile earner’s money would have doubled ever 10-18 years meaning that in 49 years, the money from that first contribution period would now be worth 3-5 times what it was when contributed. Not just double. And even the last 10-18 years worth of contributions would be worth more than double. You can check it out yourself using the data in the above link. Again, the lowest quintile contributor to SS, who by far gets more of his contributions back from SS than any other quintile, is clearly being cheated by SS because he’s going to get back less than double what he put into SS and that didn’t have to be the case. This isn’t rocket science ... you only have to pay attention.
 
And unlike a guy who got to invest his own money and still owns it, the SS contributor doesn’t own his contributions. He is completely at the mercy of the government to give him what are essentially subsistence dollars ... and they can reduce that or take it away at the stroke of a pen. The Supreme Court said so, as I have proven in many posts to this forum ... including posts to that idiot, merrill.  YOU don't own your SS contributions, Bluenami Mr Finance.  You may think you do but you don't.   YOU have no right to SS payments. NO RIGHT. The Supreme Court said so. In addition, the now poorer SS sap also can’t gift the contents of his “account” to the next generation … or give it to charity even. Because he doesn’t own it. But the man who bought an S&P index fund or T-Bills instead can. SS is a liberal scam being used to the keep the populace poor and dependent.
 
Now, I’m sure your next complaint will be “what about the risk of downturns in the market?”   That's the objection ALWAYS voiced by defenders of SS.   Well, here’s the way I might have set up my own private alternative to avoid that risk had I been allowed to do so many years ago. It's something that ANYONE could do. This example is from a post I made to former poster shintao years ago, which was, in fact, taken from what I posted to former poster Protectionist way back in 2011 when I discussed this with him on this forum. You can see, I’ve been thinking about this for many years.
 
My private alternative is a very easy to understand market investment strategy that ANYONE could use that would be just as safe as anything the SS system now offers, would require no expertise on their part (in fact, the SS administration could have set this up for contributors), and would make them many times what SS now provides them at retirement.  And at the same time, they'd OWN any remaining assets at death and be able to gift it to whoever they wanted upon their death. Plus, they'd be protected from those periodic market downturns that you leftists like to use to scare gullible people into supporting the scam SS system.  I dare you to find any fault with it, Bluenami Mr Finance.
 
Here is what I proposed back in 2011 (I won’t redo the calculations to the present because the conclusion would be the same and it was a lot of work).
 


And there you have it. The above approach clearly protects one from market downturns. And it gives back to the person MANY times what they would currently get from SS. And it's just as secure as the Federal government's SS *trust fund*. Arguably, even more secure, since it's real. And in the end it allows the owner to give what's left to their children or charity. And it's very easy to implement. No need to pick out the good stocks or risk anything in something that isn’t going to go up in a few years time. And even the SSA, stupid as it is, could probably manage to run this efficiently. So why would any of you leftists continue to defend SS? If all that leftists can do in response to this post (and all the ones before it) is keep trying to needlessly, and dishonestly, scare people ... and lie ... and obfuscate ... and then run, what's that say? When all is said and done, I think leftists appear to want people to remain poor and dependent ... on them, of course ... on Democrats/progressives/socialists/communists.  Whereas I, and many Republicans of like mind, are trying to free them from such people ... from socialists and communists who are literally stealing from them ... even the poorest of them … just to garner more power for their political party.  Leftists want to keep them enslaved. And that should make the people (ESPECIALLY young people) very, very, very angry now. Because the left is literally stealing their futures and they need to recognize that fact if they ever want to have one.
 
By the way, I fully understand the desire for helping the needy that the millennials are voicing. And I say this to them … we could have given the legitimately unemployed, aged, needy, blind and dependent the same amount of money that we did as pure and compassionate welfare (nothing wrong with that) and taken the rest of what we gave SSA over the years and truly invested it in very secure instruments … like T-Bills or the S&P index fund … and be far better off today. Nearly all of us. I’ve proven this over and over to {crickets} from the leftists on this and other forums countless times. And instead of acknowledging that, the leftists keep defending the status quo ... the system that is so obviously impoverishing all of us. The system that will take away our and our children's future. Wake up millennials. Wake up, Bluenami Mr Finance. If you don't believe me, do the math yourself. It's not that hard.
 
******************
 

Ball is back in your court, Sane.  :P

You know I love numbers.  So let's put some meat on those bones.  For sake of argument we'll say you turn 65 in 2016.  You've dutifully put away your 3% (that's how much of FICA is SS) into your 401K.  In 2016 you retired from the glue sniffing factory making a good lower middle class wage of 48,000.  Adjusted this would equate to roughly 7,000 in 1971, when you then, a stoner named moonbeam started working shoveling sh*t for your uncle after you got out of the army.  We all know (and I am sure you do) that averages are filled with peaks and valleys.  A true number would need to be calculated as such, but for the sake of argument we'll say you averaged 7% ROI every year (I won't even deduct fees).  The glue sniffing factory contributed a 50% match to your lofty saving endeavor.  With a steady hand your employer felt it was only right to give you inflationary adjusted raises.  Taking you moonbeam from 7,000 in 1971 to 48,642 in 2016 when your glue sniffing days were over.  You have now amazed 161,707.  That is 3% with a 50% employer match for 45 years at 7% (not backing out fees).

At the level of income your SS benefit would be 1,816.22 per month or 21,794.69 a year.  If you choose instead to have that same level of take you each year you would need to draw from your 401K that has been growing tax free and now will be taxed at the lower annual rate (smart move for a glue sniffer).  In order to have 21,794.69 in your pocket from drawing on your 401K (your federal taxes, not state) will require you (at current tax tables) to draw 26,578.89 annually.  Now you are still earning your 7%.  It will take you a little over 9 years to deplete your 401K.  If you are alive your SS will keep paying you.  Now I didn't factor state taxes (and some states don't tax SS).  You are also in my example under the threshold of Federal Taxes on SS.  Would you like to run the numbers yourself?  I gave you the parameters.  Feel free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BeAChooser said:

 

LOL!  I certainly did trigger him, didn't I?   :lol:

 

I tell you what ... let's see what *Mr Finance* does with this (it's something I've previously posted to the forum) ...

 

******************

 

Have you ever heard of the Rule of 72?   It’s a formula for figuring out how quickly money will double if left alone in an interest bearing account. You divide 72 by the interest rate and that tells you the number of years needed to make the money double. We can use that rule to determine what a lower quintile earner (the ones getting the most out of SS) would get back, if he’d put his SS contributions into an S&P Index fund and left it there over the years. 
 
Historically, the S&P has averaged 7-11 percent returns every year since 1928 ( http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/histretSP.html ). So the rule of 72 says that on average, money in an S&P index fund will double in just 7-10 years. So if our hypothetical lower quintile earners had left their first 7 years SS contributions in an S&P Index for 49 years (to retirement age), that first 7 years contribution would have doubled, and doubled, and doubled, and doubled and doubled and doubled and doubled … so that today, they would get back 128 TIMES what they contributed in that first 7 years. 128 TIMES. And even their contributions the last 7 years would be worth more than double what they put in. So you can see how much SS has cheated them over the years. Made them poorer. And this example applies to the lowest earning quintile just as much as the highest earning quintile. Think about that. Think about all that has been lost from people's lives because of that.
 
If you stupidly don’t trust an S&P index fund, then what if our bottom quintile person had just bought 10 year T-Bills from the government? You would trust that investment vehicle, wouldn't you?  Investment can’t be any safer or easier than that, right? After all, that’s where the government supposedly puts it’s excess SS contributions. Right? Well, the average return from 10 year T-Bills has been 4-7 percent over the years ( http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/histretSP.html). So that lowest quintile earner’s money would have doubled ever 10-18 years meaning that in 49 years, the money from that first contribution period would now be worth 3-5 times what it was when contributed. Not just double. And even the last 10-18 years worth of contributions would be worth more than double. You can check it out yourself using the data in the above link. Again, the lowest quintile contributor to SS, who by far gets more of his contributions back from SS than any other quintile, is clearly being cheated by SS because he’s going to get back less than double what he put into SS and that didn’t have to be the case. This isn’t rocket science ... you only have to pay attention.
 
And unlike a guy who got to invest his own money and still owns it, the SS contributor doesn’t own his contributions. He is completely at the mercy of the government to give him what are essentially subsistence dollars ... and they can reduce that or take it away at the stroke of a pen. The Supreme Court said so, as I have proven in many posts to this forum ... including posts to that idiot, merrill.  YOU don't own your SS contributions, Bluenami Mr Finance.  You may think you do but you don't.   YOU have no right to SS payments. NO RIGHT. The Supreme Court said so. In addition, the now poorer SS sap also can’t gift the contents of his “account” to the next generation … or give it to charity even. Because he doesn’t own it. But the man who bought an S&P index fund or T-Bills instead can. SS is a liberal scam being used to the keep the populace poor and dependent.
 
Now, I’m sure your next complaint will be “what about the risk of downturns in the market?”   That's the objection ALWAYS voiced by defenders of SS.   Well, here’s the way I might have set up my own private alternative to avoid that risk had I been allowed to do so many years ago. It's something that ANYONE could do. This example is from a post I made to former poster shintao years ago, which was, in fact, taken from what I posted to former poster Protectionist way back in 2011 when I discussed this with him on this forum. You can see, I’ve been thinking about this for many years.
 
My private alternative is a very easy to understand market investment strategy that ANYONE could use that would be just as safe as anything the SS system now offers, would require no expertise on their part (in fact, the SS administration could have set this up for contributors), and would make them many times what SS now provides them at retirement.  And at the same time, they'd OWN any remaining assets at death and be able to gift it to whoever they wanted upon their death. Plus, they'd be protected from those periodic market downturns that you leftists like to use to scare gullible people into supporting the scam SS system.  I dare you to find any fault with it, Bluenami Mr Finance.
 
Here is what I proposed back in 2011 (I won’t redo the calculations to the present because the conclusion would be the same and it was a lot of work).
 


And there you have it. The above approach clearly protects one from market downturns. And it gives back to the person MANY times what they would currently get from SS. And it's just as secure as the Federal government's SS *trust fund*. Arguably, even more secure, since it's real. And in the end it allows the owner to give what's left to their children or charity. And it's very easy to implement. No need to pick out the good stocks or risk anything in something that isn’t going to go up in a few years time. And even the SSA, stupid as it is, could probably manage to run this efficiently. So why would any of you leftists continue to defend SS? If all that leftists can do in response to this post (and all the ones before it) is keep trying to needlessly, and dishonestly, scare people ... and lie ... and obfuscate ... and then run, what's that say? When all is said and done, I think leftists appear to want people to remain poor and dependent ... on them, of course ... on Democrats/progressives/socialists/communists.  Whereas I, and many Republicans of like mind, are trying to free them from such people ... from socialists and communists who are literally stealing from them ... even the poorest of them … just to garner more power for their political party.  Leftists want to keep them enslaved. And that should make the people (ESPECIALLY young people) very, very, very angry now. Because the left is literally stealing their futures and they need to recognize that fact if they ever want to have one.
 
By the way, I fully understand the desire for helping the needy that the millennials are voicing. And I say this to them … we could have given the legitimately unemployed, aged, needy, blind and dependent the same amount of money that we did as pure and compassionate welfare (nothing wrong with that) and taken the rest of what we gave SSA over the years and truly invested it in very secure instruments … like T-Bills or the S&P index fund … and be far better off today. Nearly all of us. I’ve proven this over and over to {crickets} from the leftists on this and other forums countless times. And instead of acknowledging that, the leftists keep defending the status quo ... the system that is so obviously impoverishing all of us. The system that will take away our and our children's future. Wake up millennials. Wake up, Bluenami Mr Finance. If you don't believe me, do the math yourself. It's not that hard.
 
******************
 

Ball is back in your court, Sane.  :P

Numbers don't lie.  X wives do, but numbers don't.  Listen we agree on a substantial portion of this.  I would say a constitutional amendment would have been the only rational course of action when this was put into place.  So politicians on both sides of the isle would not rob it blind.  I get really fed up with this the "conservatives" are fiscally responsible.  Poopy cock.  They LOVE to spend just as much as the Dem's.  BS media aside.  It's true when you look at the budget.  The eventual end is a currency collapse.  Maybe in our lifetimes.  I blame them all.  Mostly I blame the media personalities Rush (huge assh*le), Fox, and MSN (the fox business model, different audience)  There isn't a politician alive (or dead) who would do the responsible thing.  They would do the popular thing to get elected.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Sane said:

For sake of argument we'll say you turn 65 in 2016.  You've dutifully put away your 3% (that's how much of FICA is SS) into your 401K.  In 2016 you retired ...

 

LOL!   You didn't even get that right, *Mr Finance*.  

 

FICA has varied over the years as follows ...

 

fica-tax-rates-over-time-chart.png

 

Currently, it's comprised of the following taxes (https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html ) ... 12.4 percent Social Security tax; 2.9 percent Medicare tax (the “regular” Medicare tax); and since 2013, a 0.9 percent Medicare surtax if you earn over $200,000.    Half of that 12.4 percent is paid by the employee and half by the employer, but in actuality almost all of it comes out of the pocket of the employee (and you are naive if you don't think that's true).    Now in your hypothetical example, your employee started working in 1971.   Well, in 1971, the same source shows that FICA was comprised of 9.2% SS tax and 1.2% Medicare tax.     Even if you were self employed the whole time, the percentage of FICA that was SS back in 1971 was 6.9%.  It was 12.4% in 2016 (in 1988 they started making it the same for both categories).    And note, that in the example you suggested ... the employee making $7000 a year in 1971 and 48,642 in 2016 ... he would not have reached the maximum at which you had to pay those SS percentages (see https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/cbb.html#Series ).    

 

So ... even back in 1971,  the employee, regardless of whether he worked for a company or was self employed, was paying far more than the 3% you claimed to SS.  

 

Where the heck did you get that 3% number, *Mr Finance*?  You have a source?  :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, BeAChooser said:

 

LOL!   You didn't even get that right, *Mr Finance*.  

 

FICA has varied over the years as follows ...

 

fica-tax-rates-over-time-chart.png

 

Currently, it's comprised of the following taxes (https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html ) ... 12.4 percent Social Security tax; 2.9 percent Medicare tax (the “regular” Medicare tax); and since 2013, a 0.9 percent Medicare surtax if you earn over $200,000.    Half of that 12.4 percent is paid by the employee and half by the employer, but in actuality almost all of it comes out of the pocket of the employee (and you are naive if you don't think that's true).    Now in your hypothetical example, your employee started working in 1971.   Well, in 1971, the same source shows that FICA was comprised of 9.2% SS tax and 1.2% Medicare tax.     Even if you were self employed the whole time, the percentage of FICA that was SS back in 1971 was 6.9%.  It was 12.4% in 2016 (in 1988 they started making it the same for both categories).    And note, that in the example you suggested ... the employee making $7000 a year in 1971 and 48,642 in 2016 ... he would not have reached the maximum at which you had to pay those SS percentages (see https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/cbb.html#Series ).    

 

So ... even back in 1971,  the employee, regardless of whether he worked for a company or was self employed, was paying far more than the 3% you claimed to SS.  

 

Where the heck did you get that 3% number, *Mr Finance*?  You have a source?  :lol:

You wanted to use rough cut numbers.  So I did.  Go ahead then.  Prove out your theory.  Start with your entry level job wage in 1970, or whenever you want.  Take your withholding by year, take the flux in your index fund (yea the peaks and valleys with your annual contribution), you can't do one without the other.  This will include the massive losses in the last decade.  Make sure you use pretax figures and let it grow at ACTUALS since now you have a hard on for it.  Then take into consideration the age you are when you retire, the state you live in (whether you are taxed of SS or not), calculate your month SS (apply Fed tax if applicable), add back the gross amount of the withdrawal that will be required to balance to your SS take home.  Use standard tax rates.  You do know that you will get taxed on your withdrawal right?  Then draw it while earning todays growth.  Smooth the draws out by month.  What you will find is that at some point you will find.  If you had invested that full amount (with a 50%, and you can play with the match).  You will at some point run out of money.  If you live longer than as a rough cut 9 years.  You are now out of cash.  That there dip sh*t is the rub.  Go ahead.  Impress me.  Use real wage figures to.  You don't start out of high school making the same as a 30 year old.  Take real dollars paid out for the "career" path you choose.  Go ahead.  You wanna talk sh*t.  Do it.  You WONT earn 7% per annum.  You won't earn that fully loaded at the beginning of the year.  It's a steady accumulation.  Use real number dip sh*t.  Since you want to run your mouth.  Run the numbers.  I will grade your work; however, unless you cheat.  You will find that there is a point were the funds are exhausted.  If you die before that date.  Your family wins.  If you out live that.  You lose.  Just deal with reality.  Go ahead use real numbers.  You don't know how to do it, but it will be a good lesson for you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, BeAChooser said:

 

LOL!   You didn't even get that right, *Mr Finance*.  

 

FICA has varied over the years as follows ...

 

fica-tax-rates-over-time-chart.png

 

Currently, it's comprised of the following taxes (https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html ) ... 12.4 percent Social Security tax; 2.9 percent Medicare tax (the “regular” Medicare tax); and since 2013, a 0.9 percent Medicare surtax if you earn over $200,000.    Half of that 12.4 percent is paid by the employee and half by the employer, but in actuality almost all of it comes out of the pocket of the employee (and you are naive if you don't think that's true).    Now in your hypothetical example, your employee started working in 1971.   Well, in 1971, the same source shows that FICA was comprised of 9.2% SS tax and 1.2% Medicare tax.     Even if you were self employed the whole time, the percentage of FICA that was SS back in 1971 was 6.9%.  It was 12.4% in 2016 (in 1988 they started making it the same for both categories).    And note, that in the example you suggested ... the employee making $7000 a year in 1971 and 48,642 in 2016 ... he would not have reached the maximum at which you had to pay those SS percentages (see https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/cbb.html#Series ).    

 

So ... even back in 1971,  the employee, regardless of whether he worked for a company or was self employed, was paying far more than the 3% you claimed to SS.  

 

Where the heck did you get that 3% number, *Mr Finance*?  You have a source?  :lol:

DON'T FORGET that isn't the amount YOU PAY.  Half of that is your employer.  SO DON"T CHEAT.  Only use YOUR contribution of SS ONLY.  Cheating is for loud mouths who want to come to a conclusion.  Don't cheat.  Don't cheat.  Ignorance is not an excuse.  Use only YOUR portion of SS ONLY!!!, start with realistic and inflation based numbers.  Go ahead child.  Learn something.  I won't gloat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/30/2019 at 9:59 AM, Sane said:

Muller did not press charges because the "Don" will be protected

Wrong.  Fact Check: When Mueller was asked whether he thought he had authority to indict Trump, if necessary, he acknowledged that he did. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sane said:

You wanted to use rough cut numbers.  So I did.

 

In other words I caught you in a LIE.   You had no source.   You just made up a percentage out of whole cloth because 3% and 9-12% are nothing alike.   

 

Thanks for AGAIN proving what I've been saying about you Sane.

 

1 hour ago, Sane said:

... snip a bunch of smoke to try and hide the fact that "Mr. Finance" just LIED and actually didn't bother to even read what I wrote ...

 

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...