We can’t trust Obama’s promises
Published: September 13, 2009
Listen up, President Obama. Your platitudinous puffery, laced with errors and constant change, does nothing to allay the concerns of what Obama care portends, other than disaster. Your vague promise has no future legal standing. Remember the Social Security program “trust me” promises?
Payments into that program were promised to be fixed at only 1 percent of the first $1,400 of annual income (now it is 15.3 percent of $102,000, employee and employer combined); payments were promised into a lock-boxed Independent Trust Fund (LBJ diverted the money into the General Fund for Congress to spend, leaving only a pile of moldy government IOUs); payouts were never to be taxes (Clinton and Gore started taxation); and payouts were promised only for contributors (Carter imitated payouts to non-contributor immigrants of age 65).
Translation: Political promises are meaningless. Note that all who broke the faith were Democrats, saddling future generations with a $50 trillion un-funded liability.
Obama care is a permanent pile of political pollution. Nothing in the Constitution warrants giving any bean-counting, bureaucratic budgeter the power of life-or-death decisions or any other personal choice.
Once installed, Obama care would grow like a cancer to invade every aspect of private life.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
old geezer, thank you. The same to you.
opa; If I could put a smiley face here, I would. You and I obviously disagree. apparently you and I will not agree on the subject. Good luck to you in your life. I wish you much happiness; and I definitely feel you have a right to your opinions.
rogersk, you again? I thought you said you would never again read or respond to any of my posts. So much for your word. What’s your excuse this time? Cognitive deficiency? I have not a clue to what you are railing about. What reply to localdad? I’ve made many.
old geezer, I hear where you are coming from. However, SS has not been “squandered.” The funds have NOT been used in ways other than that for which it was collected and promised. Always, the funds collected have both the function for which they were collected (retirement income) and to be invested until needed for the primary purpose. Your statement that “the Government has no income other than that which is derived from us, the governed” is not true. For example, the government loans money from which it collects interest, as it did recently in loans to our banks. But that aside, yes, we must pay for our government’s spending. Will we have to pay more taxes? Probably but not necessarily. Our government has run up a huge and troubling deficit. We owe money not only to the SS fund but also to foreign governments worldwide. The government has “justified” all its loans and expenditures. Most of it has gone to paying for our wars; Iraq, Afghanistan and others. The government sold their purposes to us. The SS fund is receiving interest on the funds it lends to the government. I disagree that the SS fund is shrinking as a result of misuse. It is not being misused. Basically, the shortage is caused by a shrinking work force coupled with a fast expanding retirement population and by the fact that loan repayments are out of sync with fund needs. We may not like what is, but we should at least know what is.
Opa; You suggest that SS hasn’t been squandered,but you seem to understand that the funds have been used in ways other than that for which it was collected and promised. My question for you would be, what makes that OK? “The Government” has no income other than that which is derived from us, “the governed”. How do you think that money (collected for it’s stated purpose) will be replaced? Will it, at some point become a crisis for which you and I will be required to pay more taxes? In my opinion, this would be a dishonest way of dealing with whatever “problem” is/was causing the use of the Social Security Fund.
If Congress, or the Presidents, have a “special” problem for which they are inclined to TAKE $$$$$ FROM THE SOCIAL SECURITY FUND; they should have justified it (and be honest about what they intended to do with Social Security Moneys before they touched the fund for ANYTHING other than pay it out to the folks who paid the “social Security” taxes).
To do otherwise, is DISHONEST, in my opinion. Rather than use it for an unadvertised purpose, at least the fund should be receiving some interest, as it would if we put our SS dollars in a savings bank.
But rather than growing as a savings account would, the fund is shrinking as a result of misuse.
Sorry, typo..Meant to say localdad
REALLY,OPA??? YOu have cognitive deficiency,,,refer back to your reply to locsldsd. And pay attention.
old geezer, again thank you. I figured computer problems and think I managed to decipher what you wrote. I guess there are still some glitches that our young ones should fix. Let’s hope that they will, correctly. It will soon be their world entirely.
old geezer, thank you. That helps. Why do you say SS “has been squandered as a go-to fund for various purposes bordering on, if not outright, welfare for many people who were/are not contributors.”? That is simply not true. It’s funds have been borrowed by the government for many purposes, however that is perfectly legal and within the original and current rules. Its funds remain its funds and may only be used for its purpose; retirement funds for eligible retirees. I’m sorry, you did not say term limits. You said we should do it at the polls. Why? How would doing that be more in line with what our founders intended? Why shouldn’t we be able to vote for whomever we please? I agree with what you quoted Thomas Jefferson saying.
Opa; Re: Social Security;I tried to respond by “cut & paste which appears to be a problem; so I’ll try again.
Social Security was originally sold as a fund to serve as retirement program that would be available for contributing retirees. It has been squandered as a go-to fund for various purposes bordering on, if not outright, welfare for many people who were/are not contributors. Since it was sold as a retirement fund, and used for other purposes, I count that as misuse.
Re: Term Limits: I did not say term limits, however, I don’t think term limits would be a bad idea. What I wrote was: I believe that if we’d all opt to change our Congressmen/Senators after one or two maybe terms, we’d be more in-line with what our Founding Fathers had intended. nThat is simply a statement of my belief.
I also believe that Thomas Jefferson had it right when he wrote, “It is not by the consolidation, or concentration of powers, but their distribution, that good government is effected” - Thomas Jefferson Autobiography, 1821 ME 1:122
and; “Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread.“ - Thomas Jefferson Autobiography, 1821 ME 1:122
This from the web page: http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff0650.htm
I hope this is clearer.
Advertisement