Here Is What I Recall Of The Promise Of Social Security

Back from the seventies on, it was clear to me, as a young worker, that the guy, or gal, ahead of me, then collecting SSI hadn't paid in enough to pay for what he was getting then. The promise from Congress was that if I continued paying for the guys that came before me, I would get my turn in having the people who came after me, to pay for mine, as is the case now. And on that basis they would then have the right to expect those following them would do the same. And I have to tell you, that made sense to me at the time, and it still does.

And let us not forget that that system worked quite well for many decades; that is, unfortunately, until members of both parties (although it was primarily a GOP empetus) decided that it was a neat trick to use former SSI surpluses to mask the fact that they lost the ability to pass balanced budgets. This instituted, in effect, Congress writing IOU's to SSI that, as far as I am aware, were never paid back.

And now that the masters of money have figured out that it is so very easy to convince people that cutting taxes is good, and raising them the highest evil (even though they love spending tax dollars on their favorite forms of public subsidy), suddenly the promise that was SSI is now some crafty plot by lazy, layabout old people to be "entitled" to something they shouldn't be.

Talk about creative redefinition.

In any case, however, it has always seemed to me that a very important contract was implemented by Congress with the American people after we began paying into this "you pay for the current old population so that the next group will pay for you" system. In my book, since consideration was given, and received, for a specific arrangement, basic Tort law says the government has to continue to follow through on the arrangement.

Put in simple terms for the contract challenged This Is Not Entitlement Charity You Idiots, it is a legal obligation the government entered into knowingly. An obligation that would still be working today if certain parties had had the courage to conduct their various "Wars on" in a fiscally sound way. Which means, by the way, for those of you who are also balanced budget challenged, that you actually pay for the things you claim the country should be doing.

So let's cut the crap now and be honest. We are in the position we are in now because the masters of money want their cake (the very best cake of course; the cake that nobody else could possibly get) and not have to pay for it in any way, shape, or form. And they can continue to do this because they have, apparently, figured out that your short memory, and propensity to have the flimsiest of lies believed as truth, allows them to.

It also, of course, doesn't hurt their cause, having the very economic system we all rely on here, being turned into a mutated monster that just excels in making lies in the most high fidelity way technology can create; and is always involved in an insane competition to make the lies even more high fidelity yet.

It also doesn't help that, in order to do aid for anyone, old, young, or in between, that a profit has to be made at every turn; because not only is everything a commodity, money people do not seem to have any moral, or even a sense of system limits, in what they feel they can keep asking for in increased profits, or their accumulation of same; and any sense of what is in the "public good" just gets continually redefined by the same "creative redefinition" process already mentioned, to be what is good for the masters of money.

So that is where we are actually at, and if you are arguing differently your are either a money master dupe, or a card carrying member just trying to protect your right to the very, very best cake you can get. And of course the devil can do what he pleases to the simpleton mases.

A PRIMER

What We Really Mean When We Talk About 'Entitlement Reform'

13 diggs splinternews.com Policy

We shouldn't let Republicans get away with using terms like "entitlement reform" when talking about cuts to Social Security. It would be more useful — and factual — to say that they are "taking away money that old people need to live."

See Also:

THE AMERICAN DREAM HAS RETIRED

79 And Working Full Time At Walmart: A Sobering Truth For Those Without Pensions

25 diggs The Sacramento Bee Long Reads

Tom Coomer has retired twice: once when he was 65, and then several years ago. Each time he realized that with just a Social Security check, "You can hardly make it these days."

BUST OUT THE GUILLOTINES

World's Wealthiest Became $1 Trillion Richer In 2017

17 diggs www.bloomberg.com Economics

The richest people on earth became $1 trillion richer in 2017, more than four times last year’s gain, as stock markets shrugged off economic, social and political divisions to reach record highs.