Privatize Social Security, Gay Marriage and other thoughts from the Talkmaster

This might scare certain people and some may think that Wall Street might be in the picture. However the talkmaster Neal Boortz tells it like it is.

Of all the reforms proposed by George Bush during has second term, nothing seems to cause Democrats to hyperventilate quite so much as his plans for Social Security. If you truly understand the collectivist and anti-individualistic mentality of the left this will come as no surprise.

Just what is Bush proposing? Is it truly as hideous and ugly as the Democrats portray it? Will it be the end of our country; the end of life as we know it in America. Hardly. Bush simply plans to allow "younger workers" (however that may be defined) to take some of the money that the government confiscates as Social Security payroll taxes and put that money in a private account.

This account would be owned by the individual. Government can't take it away. If the individual dies before retirement the account goes to his family, not to the government. He earned that money. It's his. It remains his. What, pray tell, is so horrible about this idea?

For Democrats, the issue is control. There is a huge segment of our society that is or will be almost totally dependent on Social Security benefits when they reach retirement age. These people would be shocked to learn that they have absolutely no irrevocable right to any benefits at all. You get those benefits if the politicians want you to get those benefits. Politicians can, without any legal recourse on your part, decide to delay your retirement age. This idea is floated often as a solution to the coming Social Security economic crunch. The motive here is to delay the retirement age so that more old Americans will actually die before they can get any of their money back, or so that they'll collect benefits for a shorter period of time before they go Tango Uniform. That money, you see, isn't yours. Oh yeah ... you worked for it. But before you could even get your hands on it the government snatched it away. And, no again. That money is not resting safely in any Social Security account or trust fund.

When the politicians got their hands on that money they call a Social Security "contribution" they used a part of it to cover the checks there were writing that particular month to Social Security recipients. The rest of it? Gone. Spent. Every single penny of it has been spent. Not invested as a private pension plan would do. They spent it all. Squandered might be a better word.

You will hear Democrats say that we can't partially privatize Social Security because it would be too expensive. What they mean is that if the person who paid the money is actually allowed to put that money into a private account, that money won't be there for the government to spend on its various vote-buying programs. If our politicians had been doing what basic decency mandated all along .... taking Social Security tax and actually setting them aside in the names of future recipients ... there would be no problem with partial privatization today. But nooooooo. That money had to be spent. There were votes to buy and citizens to be made dependent on government handouts! You can't invest in the future of our retirees when there are elections to be won.

Here's an interesting little factoid you might enjoy. Virtually every State has some sort of law that regulates insurance companies. If some private entrepreneur moved to any State in the union and started marketing a retirement and disability plan modeled after Social Security he would be arrested and jailed. No state government would allow such a scheme to exist. It does exist though. It exists as Social Security and it exists because the Imperial Federal Government exercises a monopoly on the use of force. The money is seized from the working man by force, and benefits will be granted, increased, decreased, denied or delayed as the federal government -- or as the politicians see fit.

What in the world can possibly be wrong with allowing a person to actually own a part of their Social Security account? How does this hurt Democrats so badly? In general, Democrats and liberals are hurt whenever a citizen becomes financially independent. Democratic political power is built on a foundation of dependency on government. This dependency is then used as a weapon when elections roll around. Think back as far as you like, and you won't be able to remember one presidential election where Democrats didn't tell the voters that their opponents, the evil Republicans, were going to "destroy" Social Security. Now just how in the world are the Democrats going to be able to convince voters that the evil Republicans are going to take away their private accounts? Truth is, they can't? No more than they could convince voters that Republicans were going to take their checking accounts.

Individuality and independence are poison to collectivist politics. The Democrats must do all they can to prevent those who will depend on Social Security from ever enjoying a sense of independence.

Yep I wish people would understand this, but hey Goverment is our friend right??? Just remember that the Goverment can only take wealth. It can't create the wealth.

Anyway moving on to Gay Marriage here what Boortz has to say about that.

If you listen to the talking heads on TV and read the liberal columnists, the consensus on the left seems to be emerging that George Bush was reelected because everybody was afraid that gay marriage might become the law of the land.

The election isn't even a week old, and they're already trying to revise history. Nice try.You can see exactly what's going on here. Such is the left's hatred for George Bush, he couldn't possibly have been legitimately reelected. It must have been those hateful, mean-spirited, anti-gay evangelical voters! Since they believe The Poodle was the superior candidate, they have to delude themselves with some sort of explanation as to why Bush won. But the truth is it had nothing to do with gay marriage.

The last thing these people want to do is face the possibility that their own agenda, the message they delivered to America, was flawed. Perhaps they would have been well-advised to understand that there are still quite a few people out there who don't believe that America is great because of its government.Remember, Bush had softened his stance on gay marriage toward the end of his campaign, coming out in favor of civil unions. It wasn't really a campaign issue, because Bush and The Poodle had the same position.

Yes, there were 11 states that added gay marriage bans to their constitutions. But of those 11 states, The Poodle carried two; Oregon and Michigan. But what about Florida? Florida had no gay marriage amendment on the ballot, and Bush trounced The Poodle by almost 400,000 votes.

No, the presidential election of 2004 was won because people believed that George Bush's policy of hunting down and killing Islamic terrorists was what was in their best interest. They also believed that John Kerry was a deeply flawed candidate with no record to run on. A man that could not be trusted with the reigns of power.

Of course, the left will never admit it had anything to do with them. It had to be those religious whackos that were scared of the gays.

http://boortz.com

If only the 'religious whackos' could see...Never Mind, let the Gays go to the Democrats and its just another "group" the Dems can use to win votes and gain power.