You act as though there are levels.
The headline is on the front page of WaPo. The article is here. I can see that I'm supposed to be alarmed, but I'm completely jaded. And that trickster Trump has a media-created privilege to say anything he likes. When the real apocalypse arrives, how will we know?
Posts
107 comments:
When the real apocalypse arrives, how will we know?
Don't you love farce?
My fault, I fear
I thought that you'd want what I want
Sorry, my dear!
But where are the clowns
Send in the clowns
Don't bother, they're here
Easy....there will be no bacon.
PTSD from 2016.
Even levels are true, by the double negative rule.
What are tricks to get to the next level called? Easter eggs or something.
How do you ask Trump the way to the village?
Did you know they're giving away free beer in the village - and follow him no matter what he says. Creative liars get you with the what would you say if I asked you trick.
The "without evidence" line has started to slip into the local rag and tv station headlines and leads. You'll find it amusing that it only appears on stories about Trump and/or the Republicans.
THEOLDMAN
Stuart: Oh, Sheldon, I'm afraid you couldn't be more wrong.
Sheldon: More wrong? Wrong is an absolute state and not subject to gradation.
Stuart: Of course it is. It's a little wrong to say a tomato is a vegetable. It's very wrong to say it's a suspension bridge.
The Big Bang Theory "The Hofstadter Isotope" (S2:E20)
The apocalypse is just an uncovering.
kalyptein cover apo off.
"The "without evidence" line has started to slip into the local rag and tv station headlines and leads. You'll find it amusing that it only appears on stories about Trump and/or the Republicans."
That's because a statement from a democrat is evidence that the statement is true. Because no democrat would ever say something that wasn't true.
#BelieveAllLefties
"Without evidence" refers to evidence that they, the Media, chose not to cover.
If they did not cover it then it does not exist.
A Show Press for Show Trials.
I am Laslo.
you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.
is now
levels of falsity
I don't know what is false about Democrats wanting to open borders, which would (and has even in our current immigration situation) allowed in violent criminals.
rhhardin said...
How do you ask Trump the way to the village?
Did you know they're giving away free beer in the village - and follow him no matter what he says. Creative liars get you with the what would you say if I asked you trick.
11/5/18, 5:59 AM
1. President Trump doesn't drink beer.
2. President Trump doesn't need freebies.
3. President Trump is on to you. He read those brain teaser books too as a kid. This is an Obama level stratagem.
Gab.ai is back up
John Henry
The comments to the article are a gas.
Not just completely unhinged, the hinges have been removed and thrown away.
They sound like squeamish and inga got a room and amped the crazy to 12
What a hoot to read
John Henry
Democracy Dies in Darkness!
Let's stipulate that Trump's assertions in the Post article are false. How is that substantively any different from Speaker Ryan pushing granny in a wheelchair over a cliff or asserting that a Justice Kavanaugh would cause people to die?
Speaking of apoplectic levels of falsity, The Washington Post continues to push the story that Donald Trump colluded with Vladimir Putin to steal the 2016 Presidential election.
During the 2016 campaign we had lanes, now with the Trump administration we have levels.
It’s all perspective, horizontal or vertical.
You know, when we've arrived at the point where Trump, and Republicans, want to deny healthcare to the sick, kill off grandma and grandpa, rape and otherwise objectify women, force women to have hundreds of babies, and, literally, destroy the world, then no amount of political hyperbole is too much.
In the campaign’s final days, President Trump got the WAPO to print his argument against the Dems on the front page and not in the text of the article.
Is this two scoops level of apocalypse or fed the fish too fast level? I need to know so I can calibrate my outrage.
Trump to shortly issue EO re: reading assignment USA will be Dante - Inferno
📯📯📯📯📯
Agree 100% with Laslo.
The “without evidence” language started when Trump said thousands of illegals voted for Hillary in CA. The MSM went on and on about it, but they never did their own investigation. And since CA is a one-party State, there is no incentive to prosecute illegal voting.
The MSM is all opinion and speculation all the time.
"When the real apocalypse arrives, how will we know?"
In perspective, when the real apocalypse arrives it won't matter.
It is the day before election.
I was promised a YUGE Mueller bombshell, Inga.
A revelation which would discredit Trump forever and make us speak of the death penalty.
Inga, where is Mueller?
I was promised an earth shattering kaboom!
That headline is wrong on so many levels...
This is FUN!
Democrats want to
destroy the economy -> see Bill Maher
obliterate Medicare -> *READ* Bernie's Medicare for All proposal
open the borders to violent criminals -> MOST dems now (say they) want to abolish ICE
(see that socialist bartender in NYC)
So, they're CORRECT! it *IS* a 'new level of falsity; The New TOTALLY TRUE ON ALL COUNTS level
"Levels, Jerry. Like ancient Egypt."
It's not a new observation, but . . .
If somebody wanted to destroy the economy, obliterate Medicare, open our borders, what would they do differently than what Democrats do?
"When the real apocalypse arrives, how will we know?"
Your browser will return "404" a lot.
It may not return anything at all!
But, all those things are logical political inferences to the democrats plans:
- They want to raise taxes while increasing spending - which we believe will wreck the economy.
- They want to create single-payer healthcare, which will likely destroy Medicare.
- They want to allow the entire caravan to come into the US - and there's some percentage of criminal or terrorist element within the caravan.
That democrats draw different conclusions from their plans doesn't make Trump a liar.
I don't know what is false about Democrats wanting to open borders
Find me one quote from a Democrat declaring they want "open borders" (by which I assume you mean virtually unrestricted immigration like we had until 1924)
Trump's a liar,
This I know,
'Cause the WaPo,
Tells me so.....
If a jetliner crashes in the forest and CNN doesn't report it, is it an apple or a banana?
- They want to allow the entire caravan to come into the US - and there's some percentage of criminal or terrorist element within the caravan.
This is simply a lie. No one has said this. You cannot back this accusation with a single statement from a prominent Democrat. Heck, I bet you can't even find a quote advocating this from anyone.
"President Trump has claimed without evidence that Democrats want to destroy the economy, obliterate Medicare and open the borders to violent criminals."
Without evidence? Seriously? Who ya gonna believe? Me? Or your own lyin' eyes?
As we enter the modern era of Nazism, ruled by our own beloved Hitler/Trump. Losing medicare seems like a non issue. See you at the gas chambers.
Freder, can you prove that all of them will end up being model citizens?
MOST dems now (say they) want to abolish ICE
Just because you put something in all caps doesn't make it true. Some (a very small minority) Dems say they want to abolish ICE.
"When the real apocalypse arrives, how will we know?"
The average price of a 30 second commercial on CNN will skyrocket.
Freder, can you prove that all of them will end up being model citizens?
Like I said. I see no evidence that anyone (and certainly not me) has advocated granting blanket admission to the caravan.
You are simply perpetrating a baseless lie.
This is simply a lie. No one has said this. You cannot back this accusation with a single statement from a prominent Democrat. Heck, I bet you can't even find a quote advocating this from anyone.
Maybe you can point to a single Democrat that has offered a solution to this Caravan, or securing the boarder in general. Silence is a statement (I have learned that from the Dems that constantly slam President Trump for not saying stuff)
A lot of cities governed by Democrats have established city laws forbidding the enforcement of immigration laws.
They’re model citizens now. Well except for breaking the rules part.
What's the idea that justifies sanctuary cities for illegal aliens?
Trump has never been hemmed in by fact, fairness or even logic. The 45th president proudly refuses to apologize and routinely violates the norms of decorum that guided his predecessors.
Lol. These people. Are there levels of hysterical ninnyhood? Trump aks, "Can you get even sillier and put your heads further up your asses?", and they say, "Yes, sir, we sure can!", and do so.
That Democrats want to "destroy the economy, obliterate Medicare, and open the borders to violent criminals" is "without evidence", but it's God's own truth that Flyoveria is lousy with white supremacists conducting a reign of terror over "people of color", and Republicans want to put black people back in chains and establish a Christian Patriarchy that subjugates women.
Just how far gone in believing your own bullshit do you have to be to start processing standard campaign rhetoric like a five year old? Or maybe it's just that having the mental and emotional development of a five year old is now a prerequisite for a media job these days.
A lot of cities governed by Democrats have established city laws forbidding the enforcement of immigration laws.
Another lie.
It's a little wrong to say a tomato is a vegetable.
The SUPREME COURT(!) says a tomato is a vegetable when vegetables are taxed.
Their "follow the money" logic was so clear that there was almost no reason for them to play word games.
Kirsten Gillibrand for one, Freder, what with abolishing ICE and banning deportations.
With no-one preventing entry or enforcing laws in the country, there will be a vast movement of peoples into the US. There is a tremendous desire to do so. Half of Central America would be here next week, if it were effectively legal.
Lack of enforcement also means that methods of legalization open up.
Its easy enough to understand that the political dynamic of the Democratic party, their route to ultimate power for all time (or up to the collapse of normal politics), favors unrestricted immigration. The only thing that keeps them quiet is the need to win elections at the present time, with a public that is not on board. The plan is California everywhere.
The British Labor party had the same calculation, and they ultimately admitted to it.
What do sanctuary cities forbid?
The British Labor party had the same calculation, and they ultimately admitted to it.
It didn’t work out too well for Merkel, tho.
But Freder, thats exactly what sanctuary city laws do, they prevent city employees (the police or prison personnel) from enforcing or cooperating with Federal officials in the enforcement of immigration laws, unlike the case with any other federal crime.
We have had several notable and tragic cases in San Francisco of just this.
There is no new level just a steady stream of lies from Trumpl.
Here's a linky for sanctuary cities --
LINK TEXT
That's called a shit load.
The world is primed for a moment of the falling of the walls.
There are billions ready and able to move, and the fall of the barriers in their way will seem like a collapse of the Berlin wall, a liberation.
When these things go, they go fast, its a cascade. And they are started by seemingly small incidents.
From the other side, it will seem very different. "The Camp of the Saints" is not going to be an exaggeration.
Well she lost her chair, but the coalition responsible still remains.
Roesch,
With full perspective, Trump actually tends to understate things.
I think Freder is saying: "no TRUE Democrat" would Openly come out for open borders
Freder,
Whether it is technically true or not, that is the impression that many Americans have of Democrats.
You can assert it is unfair and a lie all you want to (hey...do I REALLY want to put Black people back in chains? Cry me a frigging river!)
How do the Democrats fight this 'misperception'?
If is very simple. A few of the Leaders of the Democratic Party need to stand up and say "You know...Trump is correct that we cannot allow this rabble to extort their way into our country and agree with his mobilizing the military to stop this dangerous precedent. We love Hispanics and welcome all of them as useful citizens...blah blah blah"
But not a single Democrat has agreed with Trump or Republicans on this issue.
Tellingly!
Silence is assumed consent. How many Democrats are CRITICAL of sending the military down there?
Obama mocks it as a political stunt. The same Obama who encouraged Dreamers to come to America.
CBS is asserting that Trump lacks the authority to send troops to defend our border.
These are not serious people.
But go ahead, Freder. You start a trend. Say 'I agree with President Trump that we should not allow these people into our nation because it sends a horrible message."
Go ahead. If you are for secure borders. Say it.
If I expected truth from political rhetoric, I'd be so confused. Democratic ads around here say it's Trump who wants to destroy Medicare. My hypothesis: nobody will try to do anything with Medicare. If you've promised AARP members something, you better not take it away.
I would happily defend all three of those statements with a reasonable person.
But it will go broke by 2026, current productions continuing then what?
Covered with a pillow:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/11/04/senate-kavanaugh-ford-encounter-similar-claim/
What evidence do Democrats have that Trump is like Hitler?
Trump should have said electing Democrats would tank the economy, would let criminals among illegal migrants into the country, would overburden and bankrupt Medicare. But the statement would be too long, wouldn't it.
WaPo is obtuse, but voters understand what he means.
Frankly, at this stage voters have made up their mind already, WaPo's partisan attack would only hurt WaPo.
RE: pending Medicare collapse
The bigger question is whether the bankruptcy of a Left-dominated state will shake everybody out of their denial. When states cannot reimburse doctors or hospitals for medical care, that care will be withdrawn no matter the state of government insurance programs.
I like Freder Frederson's defense: If Democrats are lying, then you cannot infer the obvious truth about Democrats' positions.
This defense encourages and rewards lying. But you cannot conclude Democrats prefer lying because no Democrat has said precisely those words.
"...claims without evidence..."
Yes that is new to the media. Best explaination, it's a searchable tag to track, what the media claims, are President Trump's lies. Same leftist double standard. Take everthing President Trump says literally, and parse all the meaning out of words uttered by leftist. Like no Democrat advocates for open boarders. (except for the ones that use exactly those words.)
Freder, then please point to the Democrat plan to seal the border and how they are going to end illegal immigration. Surely you can find tons of videos of Democrats waxing eloquent on the need for border control.
Oh, wait... all you can find are Democrats going into grand mal seizures screaming "racist!" and "Republicans want to kill babies!" at the very hint of stopping one illegal immigrant.
Nancy Pelosi is out there praising illegal gangs like MS-13 while demeaning those "Deplorables!" Guys raping and murdering Americans have "Sparks of divinity!"-- something she never, ever would say about those deplorable Rethuglican bigots.
Sanctuary cities, attempts to give illegals open voting rights in California; the never ending push to steal from Americans and give to the illegals--how can you possibly argue that Trump is wrong when he says Democrats are for open borders? You might as well argue that Heinrich Himmler was secretly a pro-jewish guy as to argue that Democrats oppose open borders. There's more evidence for the Himmler thing.
Blogger Roger Sweeny said...
If you've promised AARP members something, you better not take it away.
Unless the AARP can make a buck on it. Then they will be leading the charge to kill it, all the while explaining to their members what a lousy deal SS, Medicare or whatever is. Meanwhile, AARP will be offering a product that they will claim to be much, much, better.
AARP, as an organization to help their members, is a gigantic scam. All it is is an insurance sales agency and an insurance lobbying organization.
It does NOTHING for it's members. Meanwhile the owners rake in the bucks from the rubes.
Where's Crack? He's been pretty vocal about other things he thinks are scams such as vitamins and bottled water. Silent on AARP. Perhaps they are paying him off. (Just kidding, Crack)
John Henry
Blogger narciso said...
But it will go broke by 2026, current productions continuing then what?
Nonsense. Medicare, and Social Security, can no more go broke than the Food Stamp program or the US Army. It is funded from general tax fund, completely independent of any contributions by individuals. They are welfare programs, enacted into law under the welfare clause of the Constitution. Payments in are a "tax".
Congress could quit funding it but the idea that it can go "broke" or "run out of money" is complete and utter bullshit.
It has also been going broke "real soon now" (tm) for an awful long time. In boot camp in 1967 we had a class on pay and benefits including a discussion of Social Security. We were told with great authority that SS would "run out of money" in the next 10 years or so. Although they were explaining how it worked and we were paying into it, we did not need to pay attention because we would never never see a nickle of it.
I've been hearing how it is going to run out of money in the next 5-10 years ever since. (Kind of like how the Arctic will be ice free in 10 years. And about as truthful)
John Henry
Payments in are a tax. Payments out are welfare.
John Henry
Dear Media,
More cowbell.
Perhaps the author should try circles instead of levels and hell instead of apocalypse.
John Henry is right about SS and Medicare.
No matter the alleged structure of these things, with investment funds and all, that stuff is just on paper. In reality these can be treated as taxes that go in the government black box and what is paid out comes out of the black box, no different from purchasing missiles or paying FBI salaries.
What matters is the overall balance of what goes into the black box from all sources vs what goes out for all puposes.
No evidence? Surely you jest.
I'm jaded as well. The Washington Post has completely exhausted their credibility the past two years. It used to be that I knew that the Post was biased but they could do good reporting. Now, they are not worthy of my time. The only thing I can say nice about them is it took them longer to be fully corrupted than the New York Times.
Well, right and wrong.
The government can borrow money so long as there are people willing to lend that money but the cost of doing so gets higher with additional borrowing beyond capacity to lend.
And the government can print money at the cost of increased inflation.
The point is that there will be higher and higher costs associated with maintaining the welfare benefits that have been promised at their current rates. Eventually the political cost of that inflation will change the incentive structures of both recipients and therefore politicians.
There are two ways of handling the imbalance long term.
Increase taxes.
Reduce expenditures.
Some of each will happen probably.
Inflation can achieve both ends actually. Tax collections will increase as more people are driven into higher brackets. Fixed formulas for benefits will not keep up with inflation.
Freder: "Like I said. I see no evidence that anyone (and certainly not me) has advocated granting blanket admission to the caravan."
Maybe there's a technical sort of truthiness to that. But the accusation that the vast majority of the left would let them in is completely justified by the reality of how things actually work. The left constantly mocks the calls to turn them away at the border and not let them cross to make their sanctuary appeals. What happens if that is done? They can't be processed and their appeals decided quickly enough, and they end up being released pending a hearing date. Of course, they're never heard from after that. They're in and got what they wanted. And their allies on the left also got what they wanted.
Not a lie, but rather reasonable inference.
If he’s talking about what Trump said about that Bracamantes guy it’s impossible to be too critical of the Establishment. They are really screwed this one up.
Kevin identifies the beauty of President Trump. Get your enemy to make your closing argument to the people on your own front page. The media will never get the best of this President. They didn't create him, they sure as hell don't have the power to destroy him.
buwaya,
True. The government will favor debt because it is a debt holder. Inflation is a great tool for a government. And people who have debt at fixed rates will do quite well. Those on variable rates - like student loans - will not see a net advantage. Those with equity positions will be hurt.
It's a complicated set of outcomes but it's easy enough to sort ones affairs with proper financial advice. Bet the way the government is going to bet.
Freder Frederson said...
I don't know what is false about Democrats wanting to open borders
Find me one quote from a Democrat declaring they want "open borders" (by which I assume you mean virtually unrestricted immigration like we had until 1924)
*********************
"Thus, as the number of immigrants rose in the 1880s and economic conditions in some areas worsened, Congress began to pass immigration legislation.
The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and Alien Contract Labor laws of 1885 and 1887 prohibited certain laborers from immigrating to the United States. The general Immigration Act of 1882 levied a head tax of fifty cents on each immigrant and blocked (or excluded) the entry of idiots, lunatics, convicts, and persons likely to become a public charge."
https://www.uscis.gov/history-and-genealogy/our-history/agency-history/early-american-immigration-policies
(and did you notice that "persons likely to become a public charge" part, Freder?)
And more from the same source:
"Concerns over mass immigration and its impact on the country began to change Americans’ historically open attitude toward immigration. Congress strengthened national immigration law with new legislation in 1903 and 1907. Meanwhile, a Presidential Commission investigated the causes of massive emigration out of Southern and Eastern Europe and the Congressional Dillingham Commission studied conditions among immigrants in the United States. These commissions’ reports influenced the writing and passage of the Immigration Act of 1917.
Among its other provisions, the 1917 Act required that immigrants be able to read and write in their native language, obligating the Immigration Service to begin administering literacy tests. Another change, the introduction of pre-inspection and more-rigorous medical examinations at the point of departure saved time for people passing through some American ports of entry and reduced the number of excluded immigrants."
Hardly "virtually unrestricted immigration"
.
"When the real apocalypse arrives, how will we know?"
Your browser will return "404" a lot.
It may not return anything at all!
-------------------------------------------------------
Paco Wove, I have it on good authority that it will return 666
A year or so ago, several liberal commentators regretfully noted that their accusations that Trump=Hitler were not effective with some people because they had previously called Bush and Romney "Hitler" and so they had diminished credibility on the subject.
Well, when you have lost your mind, things like that will happen.
Anyway, there is more truth to what Trump has said about the economy, Medicare, and violent illegal immigrants, than a lot of what Dems say about Trump. Trump is only wrong in imputing motive; they may not WANT those things, but they are predictable consequence of a lot of what many Dems say they want to do.
Whereas, calling Trump a Nazi has no relationship to any discernable facts.
"wait--are you saying my entire fallacy is wrong?"
Democrats are allowed to say anything--however outrageous--against Republicans.
Republicans must remain silent.
OK. . .
George Soros has an open borders organization with many affiliated groups and Democrats worship the ground Soros walks on.
Open borders propaganda infests many scripted TV shows already. I've heard it at least a dozen times in the last couple of weeks.
If Trump said Democrats “want” to do those things, he is mistaken. If he said, as is likely, that Democrats “will” do those thing he is correct and history proves it.
However, as we know, history for the leftmediaswine and their Democrat puppets begins in the future - always.
FIDO said... [hush][hide comment]
It is the day before election.
I was promised a YUGE Mueller bombshell, Inga.
A revelation which would discredit Trump forever and make us speak of the death penalty.
Inga, where is Mueller?
I was promised an earth shattering kaboom!
As well as Omarosa and Tom Arnold revealing the racist Trump recordings.
The “without evidence” language started when Trump said thousands of illegals voted for Hillary in CA.
He literally said "I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally." Considering Clinton won the popular vote by three million, he's alleging that somehow 3 million immigrants voted illegally.
Such an allegation under normal circumstances could be considered implausible on its face, equivalent to the idea that the WTC was brought down by a controlled demolition (which Alex Jones happened to promote before being legitimized by mainstream conservatives). The logistics of it and logic behind it (people would've come forward, etc.) make it impossible and a clear attempt to redefine reality. But since the Nazi-Retweeter-in-Chief saying something makes it at least possible to half the country these days, it is worth pointing out that the study Trump cites in this case has been thoroughly debunked.
Darrell: “Democrats worship the ground Soros walks on.“
Of course they do. He is a convicted criminal. Only unconvicted criminals are more deserving of Democrat adulation - they deserve to be President.
Oh how I long for the days when the price of a postage stamp was a major campaign issue.
As to current issues, are the Democrats clinically insane, suicidal or, most likely, both? I speak of the issue of health care.
William Clinton, in one of his first acts as president, appointed FLOTUS Hillary, his lovely bride, to redesign the nation's health care system. In the next election the Democrats lost 54 seats in the House.
At their next at-bat, with Barack Obama as the lead-off hitter, they actually enacted a major revamp of the health care system. In the next election they lost 63 seats in the house.
I just don't get it.
Shakespeare worked it out centuries ago. In “Julius Caesar,” written in 1599, he has Brutus speak to the Roman crowd, laying out the logical case why Caesar had to die. Mark Anthony, by contrast, appeals directly to the emotions of the crowd. You can almost see him sticking in the dagger and twisting it as he repeats that “Brutus is an honorable man,” with (depending on the actor) ever increasing amounts of sarcasm.
And the Roman crowd becomes a mob.
Democrats don’t much mind howling mobs, not when they’re rioting in Ferguson or Baltimore, or Antifa in Berkeley or Portland, or the hysterical banshees in the galleries at the Kavansugh hearings. A quiet mob of ordinary citizens marching to the polls to support the president who supports them, now that has to be truly terrifying.
The "debunkers" of the alien voting allegations are not credible. ProPublica is a Democratic-progressive operation no matter what it calls itself. Follow the money. They are Democrat-Progressive funded 100%.
Everyone lies in politics, even your friends.
Illegal alien voting has not been thoroughly investigated. California in particular is incredibly lax. I, a permanent resident, could vote tomorrow if I wanted to, with a provisional ballot, and who would catch me?
Andrew believes Polifact debunked Trump? Well isn't that just so special?
buwaya said...
Inflation can achieve both ends actually. Tax collections will increase as more people are driven into higher brackets. Fixed formulas for benefits will not keep up with inflation.
Inflation also solves the problems of unkeepable promises made re SS and medicare.
It really is the only possible solution to the debt and promised benefit issues.
It will happen.
Invest accordingly.
Let's just say that the Republicans want to restore the economy and foreign policy to the way it was under Obama, and let anyone into the country that wants to get in.
Remember all the good prosperity, full employment, and liberties we enjoyed then? Why, anyone could open bakeries and pizza parlors and make decent livings, remember? And all the jobs that anyone could get, especially African-Americans -- hell, they had prosperity they'd never known before, and historically low unemployment rates! And Islamists all over the world just loved us! And wars ended, and North Korea was kissing us on the lips and...it was not at all like it is now!
Oh, I forgot to add that there were many sanctuary cities that sheltered illegal immigrants. And San Francisco didn't shit-cleaning patrols, and Los Angeles didn't have typhus epidemics yet...
What a golden age it was when Obama was president!
Let's hope everyone votes for those good days!
Oh, and another thing: the Wapo was at least marginally credible then.
It’s not that they want to do those things, it’s simply that that will be the consequences of their policies.
Blogger buwaya said...
In reality these can be treated as taxes
At the risk of being pedantic, SS and Medicare not only can be treated as taxes, they must be taxes or else they are unconstitutional.
The govt has no Constitutional power to enforce any insurance or pension program. This came out in the 1930s when Frances Perkins was Sec Labor and in charge of getting SS developed.
They could find no Constitutional way to do it.
At a tea party Supreme Court Justice Harlan Stone took her aside and told her:
At one point in the afternoon Secretary Perkins found herself seated next to Justice Stone, and in their small talk he inquired as to how her work was going. The Secretary freely admitted they were stuck on the Administration's new Social Security bill, and were uncertain on what basis the new program should be founded. Upon hearing this, the Justice looked around to see if anyone was listening, leaned over to her, and putting his hand up to his mouth, whispered, "The taxing power of the Federal Government, my dear; the taxing power is sufficient for everything you want and need."
https://www.ssa.gov/history/tea.htm
SS Payments in are, legally and constitutionally designed to be a "tax"
Payments out are "welfare"
Connecting the two so is unconstitutional. According to the Supreme Court of the 1930s as well as various decisions over the years including the Obamacare system.
John Henry
I don't think that the Democrats want to "destroy the economy, obliterate Medicare, and open the borders to violent criminals". I just think that they are fine with all that if it's necessary to win and hold power. They prove it every day. Trump should not have said they wanted to do those things, but that they were willing to let them happen if they win. For citizens it effectively means the same thing. You could be charitable and say that Dems don't know these things are what they advocate, but that's just about as damning. An idiot with power can ruin your day just as well as a smart demon can.
Well, the dems openly call for higher taxes, open borders, abolish ICE, (and some) for free college for all. I do believe these things would wreck the economy. Once again Trump isn't wrong.
Post a Comment