George Will Vs. Juan Williams

Here's George Will wiping the floor with Juan Williams, eating his lunch, drinking his milkshake, and then letting Williams escape with the last word. 

Will starts by explaining why all rational people want to see ObamaCare defeated.  That's easy. 

Then Williams start in on Social Security, arguing that it's now incredibly popular, and that ObamaCare will soon achieve the same level of popularity.  AND WILL LETS HIM GET AWAY WITH IT!!!

All you have to do, George, is stand on the table, bang your shoe on the rafters, and say "JUAN, YOU OVERPAID IDIOT, SOCIAL SECURITY IS BROKE!!  THERE IS NO MONEY LEFT IN THE FUND!!!  ENRON WAS POPULAR!  LEHMAN BROTHERS WAS POPULAR!!  WHO GIVES A SHIT ABOUT POPULAR!!  THE WHITED SEPULCHRE WILL NEVER, EVER COLLECT WHAT HE PUT INTO THE FUND!  IT'S F***ING BROKE!! BROKE AS THE TEN COMMANDMENTS!!!" 

(God, I feel better now.)

Watch the whole thing.  It's only two minutes. 

 

Jesus and Ayn Rand

A friend of mine sent out a group email about Ayn Rand a few days ago.  The recipients were mostly church members.  Here’s the gist of it…..

A few days ago, (spouse) and I watched a documentary about the life and work of Ayn Rand.  She summed up her philosophy in two words:  objective reality.  Even though her parents were Jewish, at about age 10, she confided to her diary that she was an atheist.   Possibly she used objective reality because, leaving The Soviet Union in 1926, she saw how propaganda and coercion could create false reality and control people.  She abhorred altruism, the idea on which Communism and Nazism were able to function by convincing people that the individual is unimportant, that only the group, the nation is worthy of dedication.  She believed each person should pursue self interest openly without deception.

Is it possible that, when we do something good or charitable, we do so in order to feel better about ourselves, to earn approval of our peer group or, in some cases,  to earn a reward after death?  If true, it would mean the person doing good is acting on enlightened self interest. 

I realize you may consider this silly and unworthy of thought or comment, but if you have any thoughts on Rand's work or this  subject, I would be glad to receive them.   Possibly you will share your thoughts with this group of addressees.

I sent back the following, from Rand’s 1964 Playboy interview:

“My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.

The fact that a man has no claim on others (i.e., that it is not their moral duty to help him and that he cannot demand their help as his right) does not preclude or prohibit good will among men and does not make it immoral to offer or to accept voluntary, non-sacrificial assistance.

It is altruism that has corrupted and perverted human benevolence by regarding the giver as an object of immolation, and the receiver as a helplessly miserable object of pity who holds a mortgage on the lives of others—a doctrine which is extremely offensive to both parties, leaving men no choice but the roles of sacrificial victim or moral cannibal . . . .

To view the question in its proper perspective, one must begin by rejecting altruism’s terms and all of its ugly emotional aftertaste—then take a fresh look at human relationships. It is morally proper to accept help, when it is offered, not as a moral duty, but as an act of good will and generosity, when the giver can afford it (i.e., when it does not involve self-sacrifice on his part), and when it is offered in response to the receiver’s virtues, not in response to his flaws, weaknesses or moral failures, and not on the ground of his need as such.”

This prompted a few emails about Rand’s atheism, and the vast philosophical chasm that separates Ayn Rand and Jesus.  Here’s a sample, from a guy I genuinely admire:

Ayn Rand was very clear that her personal philosophy is the antithesis of the Christian teaching on selfless love.  She disagreed with Jesus in a fundamental way and made no bones about it.  It follows, therefore, that if Christians are attracted to her philosophy they are either confused, they think Rand seriously misread Jesus, or they see Christianity as a private matter with few moral implications.  I think Rand was right on the money.  The two philosophies are antithetical.  Jesus has my vote.

It went on for a while longer.  Most of the people copied on the email were good church people, all of whom I respect and admire.  I like to think that these are the people who would come to my aid if my family were to get into serious trouble.  I like to think that I would help them out in similar circumstances.  But I started thinking about what Rand said and what Jesus said.  NOT how they’ve both been interpreted, but what they actually said. 
Jesus supposedly said the following, in Matthew 6.  The additional italics are mine, for emphasis:

No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon (money).

Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

Behold the birds of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much better than they?
 
Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his height?

And why do you worry about clothing?   Look at the lilies of the field, how they grow; they don't work, neither do they spin fabric for themselves:

And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not dressed like one of these flowers.

Wherefore, if God so clothes the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, you of little faith?

Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, How shall we be clothed?

(For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knows that ye have need of all these things.

But seek first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

That's kinda intense. 
Don't worry about what you're going to eat or drink. 
Look at the birds.  They don't grow crops, but God cares about them and provides for them.  Aren't you better than they are? 
Consider the flowers.  They don't work.  They don't make fabric, or anything else, yet they're more beautiful than Solomon! 
 

Here’s Matthew 5:40 – 42:  And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away your coat, let him have your cloak also. And if someone forces you to carry his load for a mile, go with him for two miles. Give to him that asks upi, and from him that would borrow of you, turn not him away”.

Translated: If the damn lawyers take away your jacket, let 'em have your overcoat also.  If someone forces you to carry their load for a mile, go ahead and put in two miles.  GIVE to anyone who wants what you have, and if someone wants to borrow from you DO NOT turn them away. 

Luke 14:12-14: “Then said he also to him that asked him, When you make a dinner or a supper, call not your friends, nor your brethren, neither your kinsmen, nor your rich neighbors; lest they also ask tyou again, and a recompense be made thee. But when you make a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind: and you shall be blessed; for they cannot recompense you: for you shall be paid back at the resurrection of the just”
 
Don't have family over for dinner.  Ever.  Never, ever, ever.  Always feed the street people first. 
 
Now.... Compare Ayn Rand's statements on charity with those of Jesus.  I only know of one Christian who lives his life according to the statements of Christ quoted above, and most people think the guy is stark raving mad.  Maybe he is. 
 
Everyone that I know, and I mean everyone, Christian or not, tries to maintain health and life insurance, and keep up their house payments.  They try to get educations so they can provide for themselves and their families.  I've never seen anyone go into debt so they can feed more strangers, and I've never seen a robin drop worms into every nest in the forest. 
 
The average yearly income on this planet is $6,000 per person.  I've never known any follower of Christ to give away his stuff until he had less than that.  Ayn Rand advocated giving to people you feel like giving to, but only if it's not going to put you at risk.  Jesus taught that we should sacrifice ourselves, our stuff, and our security. 
 
In short, there has been an ongoing battle in the Christian church between the philosophy of Ayn Rand and the philosophy of Jesus. 
 
Ayn Rand has won it. 

6 Things Ron Paul Has To Explain

Here are 6 things that various ConservaPundits think that Ron Paul has to explain before getting any more traction in the (snicker) Party Of Small Government. 

•The “disaster” of Ronald Reagan’s conservative agenda


•Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are unconstitutional

•American drug laws are designed to fund rogue governments, CIA programs

•U.S. foreign policy “significantly contributed” to 9/11 attacks

•Returning white supremacist donation is “pandering”

•The Civil Rights Act “violated the Constitution”

Only one of them should be difficult. 

Why Rick Perry is wrong - Social Security is not a Ponzi Scheme

For years, I've mistakenly thought of Social Security as a Ponzi Scheme.  I was wrong.   
What's a Ponzi Scheme, you ask? 

Here's the U.S. Securities And Exchange Commission's answer:

A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors.

During the recent Republican debate, Texas Governor Rick Perry made a stir by declaring that Social Security was a Ponzi scheme.  Lamestream Media outrage immediately blanketed the earth.  Animal shelters were working overtime because of the MSNBC Talking Heads having multiple litters of kittens all over their desks.  If I remember correctly, Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews stood and ceremonially tore their garments and dipped their foreheads in hot vats of black ashes.  (I've got it Tivo'd at home, and will correct the names if necessary.)  Mitt Romney, in a white heat to look like the responsible adult in the room, rushed to the program's defense.  New York Timesians have gathered to reconcile their faith with the inconvenient evidence of Ponzi-ism. 

I laughed and laughed.  I shouldn't have. 

According to Reason magazine, my current source of infallible doctrine, Social Security isn't a Ponzi scheme.  Here's why:

1)  Ponzi schemes take money from new suckers and use it to pay older suckers.  Social Security collects money from new victims, uses some of it to pay previous victims, and spends the rest on stimulus packages, Cash For Clunkers, TARP, wars, prisons, slop, slush, and kickbacks to supporters and government drones.  Trillions of dollars from the Social Security Lockbox have been looted in this manner. 

2) Ponzi schemes attract their money through fraud and lies.  Social Security funds are collected at gunpoint.  If you disagree with that statement, try not paying for Social Security. 

3) When Ponzi schemes run out of suckers, they collapse.  When Social Security starts running low on suckers?  The men with guns simply raise your rates.  Here's the Cato Institute:

In fact, Social Security taxes have been raised some 40 times since the program began. The initial Social Security tax was 2 percent (split between the employer and employee), capped at $3,000 of earnings. That made for a maximum tax of $60. Today, the tax is 12.4 percent, capped at $106,800, for a maximum tax of $13,234. Even adjusting for inflation, that represents more than an 800 percent increase.

In 1950, every retiree had sixteen Social Security victims working to support him.  We now have only three suckers working to support every retired sucker.  In 2030, it'll be only two suckerw working to support every retired sucker.  Look for the men with guns to increase your rates. 

So.... according to Reason magazine, Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme (in the Bernie Madoff sense of the word). 

It is something much, much worse. 

I regret my previous error. 

The vintage poster came from here. 

A Libertarian Contract With America

The Republicans have released their "Pledge To America".  If they honor any of it (except the pledges to continue blowing money overseas) I'll be amazed. 

The Democrats haven't released any summary of their goals and objectives since it is hard to predict the direction of an ongoing train wreck. 

One cool thing about being a Libertarian is that our platform doesn't really change. 
I own me, you own you. 
 Leave everyone alone as much as possible. 
Government should provide some infrastructure, some defense, plus enforce contracts and referee in disputes. 
That's it. 

Let me propose the following Libertarian Contract With America.  (Yes, this could probably use some crowdsourcing.)

1)  If Libertarians are elected in sufficient numbers, they will repeal ObamaCare.  They will lower medical costs for all Americans by allowing a free market approach to medicine.  Things are costly when they are scarce, and any healthcare proposal that doesn't begin with eliminating scarcity is doomed to failure. 

2) If Libertarians are elected, they will ensure that The United States is the most secure nation on earth.  However, the United States will no longer ensure this security for Europe, Korea, Japan, Taiwan, or any of our other economic competitors.  Our boys and girls will come back home. 

3) Since we will no longer be defending the borders of South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, or Europe, we will no longer need 50% of our military capability.  Our government will give some of this savings back to the American taxpayers, and apply some of it to our national debt.  Even if we cut defense by 50%, we will still have the largest military on earth. 

4) The Libertarian Party will shut down a random Cabinet-level department, partly to prove that it is serious, and partly for the sheer fun of it.  The Department of Energy has more than 100,000 employees and does nothing but consume energy.  That would be a good place to start. 

5) The government will audit the Federal Reserve and publicize the findings.  The government will limit The Fed's ability to print money to pay off government debt. 

6)  Anyone wanting a bailout will have to consult his brother-in-law.  Ditto for earmarks, grants, subsidies or other forms of pork. 

7)  As American taxpayers have a sentimental attachment to public education, we will provide parents with an education voucher for their children.  Public schools will have to compete for these vouchers since this will be their only source of funding. 

8)  Since I own me and you own you, it makes no sense to continue locking recreational drug users into steel cages with rapists and murderers.  "No harm, no foul" will be the order of the day.  The violence along the Canadian border ended when our government legalized alcohol sales, and the same approach will end the violence along our border with Mexico if marijuana prohibition is ended. 

9)  The government will no longer have an opinion on who can or cannot marry, as long as he or she has reached the age of consent.  Marriage is a religious issue.  Civil Unions are a government issue and will be available to any adult partners or groups willing to be united civilly. 

10)  Throughout history, the nations with the highest levels of trade were the nations with the highest levels of prosperity.  Therefore all protective tariffs, quotas, and import taxes will be reduced to the lowest possible levels.  When Target has a sale on jeans, we don't worry about the impact on Wal-Mart, or worry about protecting Wal-Mart from unfair competition.  The same philosophy will apply to all manufacturers and other businesses.  Protecting business equals shafting consumers.   

11)  The government will support your right to shop where you want to shop.  The government will support the rights of businesses to charge whatever they want to charge, as long as it doesn't violate a pre-existing agreement.  The government will support the rights of workers to unionize and also support the rights of employers to kick out the unions and hire someone else. 
It's called "freedom of contract", and these financial transactions are none of the government's business unless one side or the other doesn't follow through on its promises. 

12) As minimum wage laws set an arbitrary minimum threshold for employment, thereby making it illegal to hire anyone whose labor is not worth this amount, minimum wages will be abolished.  The government will no longer saw the lower rungs off of the employment ladder. 

13)  Abortion rights will be left to each state.  No federal funds will be used for abortions, or any other medical procedures. 

14)  Anyone who has paid into Social Security, Medicaid, or Medicare will be given a "cash out" option that he or she can use for retirement, for immediate needs, or to take to Vegas.  Those wishing to remain in the system can do so.  (The money IS still there, right?) 

15)  Anyone wanting to bring ghosts, goblins or gods into a school will have to start a school of his own.  Anyone wanting to pray to these spirits can do so on his own time.  Silently. 

There.  That should do it.  Does anyone want to run those savings past the Congressional Budget Office?  Would we then have some money available to save and create jobs ? 

A rare moment of total honesty from Social Security

From a Social Security newsletter, which can be found at SSA.GOV , entitled "What Young Workers Should Know About Social Security And Saving".

"....Because people are living longer and the birthrate is low, the ratio of workers to beneficiaries is falling. Therefore the taxes that are paid by workers will not be enough to pay the full benefit amounts scheduled.

However, this does not mean that Social Security benefit payments would disappear. Even if modifications to the program are not made, there would still be enough funds in 2041 from taxes paid by workers to pay about $780 for every $1,000 in benefits scheduled."

Consider the nerve it takes to publish a statement like that one. I'm going to take your money under false pretenses. I'm going to claim that I'll give it back to you based on a certain schedule. But I know that I'm full of crap. Everyone knows that I'm full of crap. But hey, I'm probably good for 75% of what I promised ! !

No one has the nerve to stand up and claim that I'm not full of crap, including me. But if people don't start saving more on their own, it's going to be an even bigger mess. Therefore, you must continue contributing.

And I'm going to issue press releases that show how badly screwed my system is.

Unbelievable.

Social Security, and other Ponzi schemes

Here's Tim Slagle, writing in the December issue of Liberty magazine:



Here’s the reason why a private insurance program will always be a better option than Social Security: there was a slump in the market this week, but it will recover. Almost all the value it had will come back in time. On the other hand, everything you have ever paid into Social Security has been spent. It’s gone. Social Security is completely bankrupt, and trillions of dollars in debt. If it were a private corporation, its administrators would all be in jail.
So if you had your choice, whether to put 15% of your income into Social Security, or the stock market, where would you put it? And in a free country, shouldn’t you be entitled to make that choice?

First off, the total bankruptcy of Social Security has been brought to you by the same people who think they can regulate the stock market. But, I digress.

Let's take Mr. Slagle's statement a few steps further..... Given the total lack of accountability in the Social Security system, I think that all of us - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, members of the Green Party, and the Flat Earth Society - all of us would've prefered to put all of our money into the stock market from Day One, and do without Social Security altogether, right? There is no money at all in the S.S. fund. It's now a troubled Ponzi scheme. Surely we can agree on that much.

But what if you were only given the choice of withdrawing all of your contributions to Social Security and putting it into the market on the day before the recent financial meltdown? Would you still do it?

Of course you would. Unless we immediately open the border to a jillion Mexican teen-agers, there simply aren't enough people coming into the workforce to keep the current Bernie Madoff-style Social Security scheme afloat. It's doomed.

One last question.... Is there ANY scenario in which you wouldn't prefer to have all of your Social Security payments put into stocks/mutual funds/etc. ?

So why aren't we allowed to do it?