Conservative Libertarian Political Mishmash

Friday, May 06, 2005

Stupid Social Security

Apparently it is imperative that all old people be required to “spend the remainder of their retired years begging politicians for their livelihood”…er, “have a safe and comfortable retirement that is insulated from market shocks and guaranteed by the full faith of the federal government” WTF? Liberals insist that it is highly important to have a retirement nestegg that is insulated from market shocks, impenetrable by the so frequent black crashes of the stock market. Yet, no liberal will actually come out and say that we are supposed to depend completely on Social Security, we need to teach people to save for their own retirement because S.S. is only the “Icing on the Cake” Well, I don’t know about you, but I don’t like icing without the cake…where is the cake in this equation? What exactly is S.S. supposed to be “icing”? That is when people say that it is your responsibility to contribute to your own 401(k) or IRA in addition to the 1/8th your income that goes to S.S., and it is from these investments that you will get the bulk of your retirement money (it’s the cake, stupid!). But for most of us, our 401(k) and IRA programs are invested in stocks and bonds – the very same stocks and bonds that are “too risky” and could spell trouble for the fabulously safe S.S. icing. This brings about a conundrum: Suppose Social Security were completely privatized, all of our money would be subject to the whim of “Wall Street”, we could lose everything – just so long as the entire US economy vaporized instantly. Keep in mind, we are all losing together. If S.S. remains public in the same situation, I would – have a bunch….er, a small relief check…of icing. Either way, I can’t have my economic-depression-cake, or eat it too. Of course, if the economy were to tank so badly that all the 401(k) stocks vaporized, there wouldn’t be much of an economy left. Heck, in a situation like that, even Wal-Mart could go bust. People become unemployed. The unemployed make no money and pay no payroll taxes. Incidentally, payroll taxes are where S.S. benefits come from, sooo…maybe you WON’T get your “Security” after all. So it sounds like either way I’m going to be funding most of my retirement with risky business like Wal-Mart stocks and port belly futures. IF WE HAD SOME CAKE WE COULD HAVE ICED CAKE, IF WE HAD SOME ICING!! What the hell is the point of Social Security if it gives everything but the last word?!?!? There is no security, there is no money! And furthermore, if the economy tanks and you get your social security check comes in the mail, JUST WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO BUY WITH IT?? Food at Wal-Mart…wait! Wal-mart tanked in the depression. So did ADM and all the transportation companies that ship the food. People are living and bartering like animals. And ALL of them have social security checks like yours. Yours might as well be…a slip of paper. Liberals never seemed to grasp the point that no matter how much money the government gives you, it can’t give you something to buy with it. Stalin tried that with Gulag work camps, and it didn’t work in the end, and it sucked anyway. The government will always need an economy to run the welfare state, so we might as well capitalize on the risks and prosper because the boat can sink whether you are in first class or third class…might as well be rich while we are still on the surface. BTW. you liberals are F&@*$#@ annoying in your elitist intelligensia philosophising over Social Security...you think you're so smart, and you didn't catch this?!?!..HOW DO YOU LIKE DEM APPALS!!

Sunday, February 13, 2005

National Religion of America

America's official secular religion After an entire holiday season of love and good cheer being replaced by suspicion and prejudice, I realized that all the hubbub was completely misplaced. Or, at least as far as the anti-Christ lobby was concerned. All this talk about the separation of church and state and the unending promotion by liberals of the secular welfare state laded an epiphany upon me: Socialism is the State religion of America! This is not a far-fetched idea. Although most critics would claim that socialism can be secular and therefore is not a religion, they aren’t delving deeply enough into the philosophy of "secular". What is it that makes an institution secular? Is it the ambivalence toward a god or creator, or blatant hate for such beliefs? Better yet, what qualifies a religion? Does it revolve around a belief in a higher power or is it a system of beliefs, only one of which is that higher power? Good questions when considering the effects of religion on government, especially in the welfare state. If one were to envision the concept of "god" (or the more abstract "higher power") one could easily find the secular equivalent in the word "government". For liberals, the state satisfies what religion does for conservatives. Rather than vesting power in god, they vest it in bureaucracy. In the same way that god touches every instant of our existence, so does government. As conservatives may plead to god for good fortune or assistance in dire need, the liberal writes his congressman and begs for handouts. Instead of divine intervention, welfare checks, food stamps and agricultural subsidies are sent. Its temples are of reinforced concrete, elaborately encrusted in graffiti and human filth, rising from the ashes of what were once great cities. It is a sad and uninspiring religion. The only significant difference between the two religions is that the secular one is a religion of men. Secularists worship heroes of the welfare state, like FDR and Bill Clinton. There is no Moses of the secular religion, only man-gods. They are quoted as scripture. In the wake of Clinton's presidency, liberals scour the nation for his second coming, and the rapture of nationalized industry and health care. The most striking part of secularism is the similarity in means and methods to the oppression of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church of ages ago. For those of us nonbelievers, we are not free to avoid social engineering projects of the secular religion. We must show up every April 15 to the temple of income and FICA taxes, where we will put half our annual income in the basket. If we refuse on the basis that we do not want to have any part of this religion, we will be threatened with imprisonment, or be relieved of our possessions. We do not contribute for the grace of God, we do so for the good of the collective. Despite having a charitable, secular, and non-threatening face, it is as non-negotiable as a crime boss. For the founding fathers and those that came here before them, freedom of religion was important because religion was oppression because religion was the state. Whether that state professed a common god to be worshipped by all or a common good to be satisfied by all is irrelevant, the effect on personal freedom is the same. The constitutional ban on establishment of religion was not just a generic move toward liberalizing the nation, but was intended primarily to remove from the state the power that England used for so many years to oppress it's empire, the power of coercion. It is only because governments of the time would generally use the church as a means for coercion that this freedom is so pronounced in our constitution. Freely practicing my religion as an atheist revolves around not attending church, paying for my own retirement, and not paying for the failed business practices of others. Yet of these three things, my only true freedom is that of religion, to all the others I must be a fully devout secularist. Unfortunately, there are no more "new worlds" left to seek freedom in.

Monday, November 15, 2004

The Values Election - Overcoming the Morality Chasm

In our most recent exercise of democratic rights, America reelected president Bush by 51% majority, the first majority election in 16 years. After a race loaded with mind-numbing quantities of statistically irrelevant Zogby polls, a number of tear-filled political advertisements, and exit polls that were about as accurate as Enron's SEC filings, the winner was...not really a suprise. And yet, it was such a BIG suprise. Apparently, after such a bloody and amoral campaign, Americans decided to take their moral values with them to the polls rather than leave them at home. Of course the first people to become upset about this are the people who lost because of it, the Democratic party. Now it is debatable as to exactly how important "moral values" were to the election (a number of writers have convincingly debased the exit poll that was used to determine its importance), we can assume from radio talk alone that there were, in fact, people voting their morality. Michael Moore's response to this was to post a map on his website showing Canadian imperialists of the "United States of Canada" occupying the Northeast and West coast and renaming the remainder of the union (the "Red" states) "Jesusland". This makes one thing clearer than ever; after all this campaigning and vowing to take back the White House, the democrats still have not learned anything about democracy. According to the CIA world factbook, over 3/4 of Americans are of a Jesus-loving denominaiton of some sort. Thats a lot of electoral AND popular votes, and in order to get a majority, you need a pretty significant share of them. As long as Democrats continue to perpetuate the myth of the "angry white man" returning the Republicans to power, the "bigoted white redneck homophobe" perpetuating it, and associating these parties with Christians, they will continue to lose elections. This is not about religious facists, this is about people with moral values that differ from the ones that Democrats were running the country with for the last 70 years. Unfortunately, for Democrats, while they were busy building this beast of a welfare state, failed to consider that someone else might be in charge of it someday, someone who did not value abortion rights, welfare dependency, the social security graft scheme and the public finance of aspiring young artists who urinate on religious symbols. The youth of the Democratic line have come to believe that these are somehow "natural" laws, as inviolable as gravity. Now, reilgious people are in charge of this system and they are fitting it to their style. The Democrats' response to this was likely the same as it would have been if gravity had reversed; either they kill themselves or they float upward into Canada, where nearly banrupted health care can heal their wounds (after a 6 month queue, of course). Abortion is one of these issues that falls under the category "moral". Abortion is not just a political issue, as liberals have always considered it, and it is most definitely not just a religious issue. Contrary to the teachings of the "Bloated Buffoon" Michael "Marxy" Moore, one can oppose abortion without being a Jesus-freak. I myself am atheist in the strictest sense, the closest I get to religion is dating a Jew, and yet I find abortion to be, in a word, "disgusting". The problem with abortion is it poses a dangerous political issue for the US. Societies that do not limit their common laws and policies as close to majority consensus as possible are faced with...our current state of divisiveness. If 60% of Americans oppose abortion on the grounds that it is murder, while the others want it on-demand and subsidized by the government, they are making much more than a religious or political statement. They are at the same time equating abortion to the most heinous crime of all human civilization AND calling it socially acceptable. Where in history has a society been able to survive such a wide gap of morality? Exactly never. And if there is a gap, it gets "smoothed out" so to speak, through a)compromise or b) bloody civil war in which one position of the debate is eliminated. In the US, such a compromise could be afforded by the partial birth abortion ban. Neither side will be particularly celebratory at the result, and they may even be mutually disappointed. At least they will be "mutual" in SOMETHING, though, and liberals can still get abortions, and conservatives can still stop some of them from murdering their fetuses. When Liberals disregard this position of compromise as "religious fanaticism," they not only miss the point but they miss the vote. Their unwillingness to engage in a serious debate of these issues will lead them further into the hole in which they have fallen. Only Facists like Moore would believe in the elitism of liberalism enough to warrant rejecting such a strong majority of the population on the grounds that they are "stupid". See definition of "Democracy" If the Democrats want to survive this onslaught of majoritarian "stupidity", they are going to have to unhitch their wagon from the Michael Moores and the MoveOn.orgs of the nation. There are Democrats out there who are Christians, conservatives, and parents. To rest your poliitcal reputation on a scruffy tubby propagandist who shares no values with the above mentioned Democrats is...to put it into debate words...like being a fetus and sticking yourself with the fork.

Time to get famous

If Bill O'Reilly, Michael Moore, and Michael Savage can do it, so can I. If all it takes to move the political world is a 200-page opinion piece, I can send it out of orbit! It's time to get famous, and here is where it starts...the internet. Like everything on the internet, it is free and will simultaneously - miraculously - make me lots of money. At least some recognition, perhaps. So tune in!