What's The Dumbest Thing You Could Say To A Congresswoman Who Lost Her Legs In Battle? Um, THIS.
You MUST watch this.
The first comment on my friend's page came from someone (I'll call him L) with whom I had previously discussed politics. It was the first response to the video. There was one other, and my comment appeared below it. From there the following discussion ensued and continued throughout most of the day:
The video is riveting, but I found the headline to be misleading. In the video, Rep. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) excoriates a federal contractor for claiming that a high school sports injury had rendered him a service-disabled veteran, thus securing for his business preferential treatment in the granting of government contracts.
I shared the video on my Facebook page along with the comment I had written on my friend's page, as follows:
You MUST watch this.
Note: The Upworthy question used as a title for the article is misleading. It stresses Ms. Duckworth's injuries when, in fact, her commentary focuses on how those who "game the system" for personal gain hurt our veterans and feed into the public's innacurate perception (thanks in large part to the GOP's incessant propagandizing) that all government programs are corrupt.
The first comment on my friend's page came from someone (I'll call him L) with whom I had previously discussed politics. It was the first response to the video. There was one other, and my comment appeared below it. From there the following discussion ensued and continued throughout most of the day:
L: What an overwhelming contrast of ethics!
O: Go Ms. Duckworth!
G: The Upworthy question used as a title for the article is misleading. It stresses Ms. Duckworth's injuries when, in fact, her commentary focuses on how those who "game the system" for personal gain hurt our veterans and feed into the public's inaccurate perception (thanks in large part to the GOP's incessant propagandizing) that all government programs are corrupt.
L: No, George, not all government programs (& not all non-gov't programs) are corrupt. The difference is that in a free society, the public learns of the private corrupt stuff and stops patronizing it. But the gov't corruption goes on and on and Congress "solves" the problem by throwing more money - TAXPAYER money - at the corruption!
G: I thought it was too good to be true that you and I might actually agree on a political point for once.
You left out the most important word in your description of the difference between private and public corruption. That word is IF, and it goes here:
IF the public learns of the private corrupt stuff...
By the definition and legal underpinnings of PRIVATE enterprise, corporations are able to hide their misdeeds behind the smokescreen of "proprietary information."
The fact that folks all over the country constantly argue about the efficacy of PUBLIC policy gives the lie to your argument. It is the collaboration between corrupt and/or unregulated businesses and bought-and-paid-for politicians that creates and perpetuates corruption in the public sector.
Can you say, "Cut food stamps and use the money to enrich agribusiness conglomerates?" I knew you could.
Watch the Duckworth video again. This time pay attention all the way to the end.
L: Let's take Bernie Madoff as an example. Massive ripoff of maybe a couple hundred clients. he left his prototype, Ponzi, in the dust. Only a few "investors" who were smart enough, or lucky enough, to withdraw early came out ahead. BUT - Madoff is left in the dust by that great American institution, Social Security! Early participants paid in pennies and received worthwhile pensions. But now we have Congress "borrowing" from the SS trust fund, faux-disabled people ripping off the SSDI - retirement benefits in BIG trouble - and you and I have no say in watching the whole thing tank.
L: George - Your comments about crony capitalism, the unholy alliance of government and private interests, are right on the money. We need to STOP corporate AND union funding of politicians' pockets! The entire Ag bill should die - it's a first-class example of crony capitalism!
G: So, we do agree on something, that being the existence of and danger to our country posed by crony capitalism.
However we disagree on another point. I contend that Social Security retirement benefits are NOT in "BIG trouble" except in the eyes of those who believe selling that lie will enable them to more quickly realize their goal of getting their mitts (deliberately chosen word) on the flow of money into the Social Security trust fund in order to "fix" (again a deliberately chosen word) it.
Anyone who understands how Social Security was designed knows that it is rooted in the belief that the American economy and its people will continue to flourish and prosper.
Congress, when it has taken a more-liberal turn, has "borrowed" from the Social Security fund because it was the only way to fund needed social policy in the face of opposition by those working to privatize the wealth held in common by all Americans. That "borrowing" amounts to little more than a paper transfer, an entry into an accounting ledger. The funds are backed, as is every dollar bill printed, by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government.
Disingenuous, duplicitous, and disgusting are words that come to my mind when I think of politicians who say they're working to restore fiscal responsibility to the public sector by passing legislation designed to funnel that wealth into the bank accounts of the few via "privatization" schemes.
L: George, don't know about you, but I voluntarily put less into a 401K, for fewer years, than I involuntarily put into SS. But my retirement funds from the 401K beat the daylights out of Social Security. Yes, I endured the turbulence of 1987 and 2008 and a few more, but can't complain overall. Can't say I'm impressed with the way the government handled my money, though!
G: And I'd be willing to bet that the difference in performance you describe is mainly due to the restrictions placed on Social Security by the folks of whom I spoke in my previous post.
If that is the case, as I suspect it to be, then your argument amounts to little more than an endorsement of the use of the old "self-fulfilling prophecy" ploy to thwart competition while promoting the very crony capitalism you claim to dislike.
L: Don't think so, sir. I simply did a little research on what companies were most consistently profitable in the open market. Yes, some of them also did some government business, but that amounted to 10-20% overall, and the goods they sold the government...
G: Not talking about companies that did government business. I'm talking about the Social Security fund not being allowed to invest in any number of safe, lucrative financial instruments because of politics.
Here are some links for you to peruse:...See More#142: Trust Fund Investment Policies and Practiceswww.ssa.govWith trust fund assets growing from just under $46 billion at the end of September 1986 to over $730 billion at the end of September 1998, interest earnings from the investment of trust fund assets have been an increasing percentage of trust fund income. (See the table below.) As the trust funds con...
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/NOTES/note142.htmlhttps://www2.bc.edu/pierluigi-balduzzi/wp1.pdfhttp://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html#a0=-1
L: Don't forget that US debt has DOUBLED in less than a decade.
G: Another less-than honest argument, given that the vast majority of the national debt is owed to the 1%, and the portion owned by foreign entities represents investment in America based on the strength of the very "full faith and credit" guarantee that backs Social Security.
L: That "full faith and credit" guarantee merely means we are less likely to default than Mexico or Argentina or Italy. I'm sure that puts us in good company.
G: (posting text copied from http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html#a0=6)
Money flowing into the trust funds is invested in U. S. Government securities. Because the government spends this borrowed cash, some people see the trust fund assets as an accumulation of securities that the government will be unable to make good on in the future. Without legislation to restore long-range solvency of the trust funds, redemption of long-term securities prior to maturity would be necessary.
Far from being "worthless IOUs," the investments held by the trust funds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U. S. Government. The government has always repaid Social Security, with interest. The special-issue securities are, therefore, just as safe as U.S. Savings Bonds or other financial instruments of the Federal government.
Many options are being considered to restore long-range trust fund solvency. These options are being considered now, well in advance of the year the funds are likely to be exhausted. It is thus likely that legislation will be enacted to restore long-term solvency, making it unlikely that the trust funds' securities will need to be redeemed on a large scale prior to maturity.
L: We do have the fastest printing press in the galaxy!
L: Throughout history, the timing of governments' corrective economic action has been: TOO MUCH, TOO LATE. As such, it exaggerates economic cycles. Any engineer who has studied closed-loop control systems will immediately see the parallel.
G: And you don't see that as being the result of politics? Notice that I didn't specify whose politics, as in those of the two major political parties. History, however, makes it fairly clear that those who embrace and promote conservative policies, be they economic, social, racial, educational, of any other you might think of, by and large do so out of fear of change and a desire to control the lives of others who might pose a challenge to their positions of privilege.
So, in light of my statement made earlier that "the full faith and credit" of the U.S., which backs Social Security, "is rooted in the belief that the American economy and its people will continue to flourish and prosper," I must ask you the question so often posed to liberals by conservatives: Why do you hate America? ;-)
L: "... fear of change and a desire to control the lives of others who might pose a challenge to their positions of privilege." Huh? No, the conservative (or I should say libertarian) position is the knowledge that government and its laws and regulations can either 1) permit natural incentives to experiment, fail perhaps, but try again, and thus advance prosperity for the individual and his clients; or 2) rigidly restrict innovation, slow economic progress, You can see our Constitution is in #1, as a result of our founding fathers having had ENOUGH of #2.
G: You, my friend are trying to have things both ways. At the heart of what you call "knowledge", is an attempt to resurrect and re-litigate the federalist vs. anti-federalist debate of pre-constitutional America.
The question of federalism vs. anti-federalism
http://staff.gps.edu/mines/APUSH%20-antifederalists_vs_federalists.htm
was settled when the Constitution was ratified.
For the philosophical forefathers of those who today call themselves Libertarians, however, that was not acceptable. It was they, who in the 1860s challenged the legitimacy and supremacy of federal law under The Constitution in what many of their philosophical offspring still call "The War of Northern Aggression."
In addition, your talk of "natural incentives" is little more than a reworking of the flawed concept of "natural law" applied to economics. Thus, yours is an economic philosophy based on rigidly-held, a priori assumption supported by little more than circular argument.
Therefore, your seemingly benign position is exposed as aduplicitous given that it would codify and impose rigidity while claiming to be against it.
The Constitutional barrier between church and state is a clear refutation of a government in which a priori assumptions serve as the template for legislation. Thankfully, the founding fathers devised a system which strives, albeit imperfectly, to enact just and malleable laws for the benefit of all rather than for "the individual and his clients."
Granting primacy to the advancement of "prosperity for the individual and his clients" is clearly an argument for crony capitalism, which mocks the preamble to The Constitution.
So, I must ask you once again: Why do you hate America? ;-)
L: Worth a look: http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/.../role-business-and...
"Intellectual Takeout was founded to take back our future because there is a better way forward. We reach back to deeper truths in order to present what could be, based on the ideals of freedom, justice, and subsidiarity. By doing so, we hope to provide our readers with the knowledge, clarity, and confidence necessary to pursue a bright future."
L: The view from 1600 Pennsy Ave.:http://www.ijreview.com/.../113068-wh-press-secretary.../
G: Congratulations on your ability to cherry-pick a sound bite out of context and present it as if it were the crux of a much longer statement. This is exactly what the right did with "You...you didn't make that" when President Obama said it in reference to the publicly-funded infrastructure of highways that supports businesses.
L: review that BHO speech again. He was speaking in general terms, not confined to highways!
G: You review it. It was clearly a parenthetic expression referencing the government-funded programs which help make businesses possible only to have their CEO's claim to be completely self-made millionaires.
L: Face it, George. Our "benevolent" government takes on jobs it can't handle, hires people with NO expertise in the proposed job, monopolizes the market, and buries its mistakes in goobledegook and lies. Look no farther than PPACA; the geniuses who contrived this belong in a zoo! It has kicked MORE people out of health insurance contracts than it promised initial coverage. Can you say the cure is worse than the disease? Whatever the flaws of a free market, it COULD NOT be worse than PPACA.
G: Since you have clearly decided to resort to meticulously and thoroughly debunked "arguments" against the Affordable Care Act as support for your position. I believe it is time for me to bow out of this non-discussion.
Have a nice day.I need someone to remind me why I bother doing this.
No comments:
Post a Comment