If you read newspapers or watch TV, you must have heard that Social Security is running out of money. The fund is being depleted, there are only four workers contributing for each recipient, current revenue does not cover current benefits, in a few years the whole system will go belly-up unless drastic reforms are instituted. At least, that's what I've heard and seen.
My question is, why, oh why, would the original stimulus program want to take funding out of this rickety system by cutting a third of the employee's payroll taxes that support the system? Why would Obama's new stimulus package want to more than double down and eliminate HALF of the employee's AND HALF of the employer's contributions?
Where will the money to pay the benefits come from? Are we going to borrow another gazillion dollars from China? Are we going to print more money and pump up inflation? Are our children and grandchildren going to pick up the tab for our foolish decisions? Or, are we just going to cut the benefits?
I get that the conventional political wisdom is, by decreasing the FICA tax, consumer spending will increase, and that will spur the economy. I get it, but I don't agree with it. It didn't work with the first stimulus, but, hey, it might work this time. The only sure thing is that we will have definitely jeopardized the funding and future of the social security system.
Where are the Republicans on this issue? Where is the Tea Party? Obama and the Democrats are pummeled for being the party that loves to tax, spend, borrow, and print money. Republicans pride themselves as being the party of balanced budgets, lower debt, and a strong dollar.
Why haven't I heard a single Republican speak out on this issue? Why have no Republican presidential candidates stepped up to protect the fiscal integrity of the social security system from further degradation?
The silence from both political parties can only lead one to believe that both are willing to risk the sure danger to the social security system, in order to accept the political cover of a risky gamble to improve the economy and "lower taxes". It makes politicians look like they are "doing something" about the economy and jobs, and, as long as no one questions the wisdom of what they are "doing", they get away with it.
Unfortunately, they are not lowering your income taxes, they are lowering the FICA contributions to your retirement fund; deciding, for you, that you should spend more now, and that you shouldn't trouble your mind about the missing contributions. Don't worry, the money will somehow, magically arrive at the perfect time when you need it.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
The Search for the Generic Derogatory
In the old days, there was an infinite number of insulting names and stereotypes for every racial, ethnic, religious, sexual orientation, or gender group. If someone bugged you, you insulted them with the appropriate generalization, and they retorted with an insulting barb to you, your background, and the horse you rode in on.
Spleens were vented, egos were inflated, dominance was asserted, respect was earned. This macho version of "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never harm me" was a stylistic peacock dance designed to save face and provide both parties a chance to sound tough and avoid physical conflict.
Political correctness has re-educated this situation from an attempt to place a group stereotype on an individual to an attempt to legitimize the stereotype on the entire group. In other words, it makes the leap from using a word that demeans a group, to accusing you of actually believing that the group fits the stereotype.
Use the wrong word, and you're racist, or sexist, or homophobic. This takes all the fun out of the argument. It's not easy defending yourself from the accusation that you're attacking a group of innocent people, when all you wanted to do was insult the person you're arguing with.
So, I propose we designate a noun as the official "Generic Derogatory". A debator would immediately recognize the usefulness of a powerful word to denigrate your opponent without opening you up to charges that you stereotype race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or gender.
"Loser" is such a word, except that it kind of implies that winners can't be jerks, and we all know that can't be true. "Jerk" could be a good word, except it isn't a really strong enough word to provide the visceral high of the perfect epithet.
I propose "Asshole". We all know an Asshole when we see or hear one. Anyone can be an Asshole at any given time. If you accuse someone of being an Asshole, they would be tacitly admitting their guilt by accusing you of insulting all the other Assholes.
Plus, an infinite number of adjectives would apply. For example, a kinder, gentler, "a little bit of an A-hole". Then, there could be a "Perfect Asshole" (perhaps a perfectionist), or, a "Dangerous Asshole" (a terrorist or a political opponent), leading up to the "Colossal Asshole" (a politician, Wall Street banker, union boss, lawyer, professor, or ex-spouse, take your choice).
I'm sure if you give this much thought, you may come up with a "Generic Derogatory" of your own. It's a free country. Everyone has the right to their opinion. But only an Asshole would disagree with me.
Spleens were vented, egos were inflated, dominance was asserted, respect was earned. This macho version of "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never harm me" was a stylistic peacock dance designed to save face and provide both parties a chance to sound tough and avoid physical conflict.
Political correctness has re-educated this situation from an attempt to place a group stereotype on an individual to an attempt to legitimize the stereotype on the entire group. In other words, it makes the leap from using a word that demeans a group, to accusing you of actually believing that the group fits the stereotype.
Use the wrong word, and you're racist, or sexist, or homophobic. This takes all the fun out of the argument. It's not easy defending yourself from the accusation that you're attacking a group of innocent people, when all you wanted to do was insult the person you're arguing with.
So, I propose we designate a noun as the official "Generic Derogatory". A debator would immediately recognize the usefulness of a powerful word to denigrate your opponent without opening you up to charges that you stereotype race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or gender.
"Loser" is such a word, except that it kind of implies that winners can't be jerks, and we all know that can't be true. "Jerk" could be a good word, except it isn't a really strong enough word to provide the visceral high of the perfect epithet.
I propose "Asshole". We all know an Asshole when we see or hear one. Anyone can be an Asshole at any given time. If you accuse someone of being an Asshole, they would be tacitly admitting their guilt by accusing you of insulting all the other Assholes.
Plus, an infinite number of adjectives would apply. For example, a kinder, gentler, "a little bit of an A-hole". Then, there could be a "Perfect Asshole" (perhaps a perfectionist), or, a "Dangerous Asshole" (a terrorist or a political opponent), leading up to the "Colossal Asshole" (a politician, Wall Street banker, union boss, lawyer, professor, or ex-spouse, take your choice).
I'm sure if you give this much thought, you may come up with a "Generic Derogatory" of your own. It's a free country. Everyone has the right to their opinion. But only an Asshole would disagree with me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)