||[Feb. 10th, 2012|01:18 pm]
VIRAL NOTES: Someone was nattering at me, last night during CPAC, about my absolute unwillingness to compromise on unfunded liabilities. I see unfunded liabilities as nothing more than un-Constitutional financial expenditures that serve no purposes, other than to contribute to destroying America's economy, and rendering people inured to the government a permanent slave underclass.
The person that was nattering and nay-saying (all without asking me what I would actually do about it, and just throwing strawmen left & right, falsely claiming what I would, or would not, do) claimed that I would just terminate the program, as president...
...leaving people with nothing.
Let's face facts: Social Security is broke.
THAT MONEY IS GONE.
For one, the Constitution of the United States does not give the federal government the authority to force everybody to pay for everybody elses' retirement. If that's in the Constitution, put up, or shut up. Show me. This program I would terminate by working with both the Private Sector and the States, where this power truly lies.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
X Amendment, Constitution of the United States of America
This means that if the Constitution doesn't explicitly enumerate any particular power or function to federal government, that power is automatically in the hands of the People and the States. That is plain as day, and even an idiot can understand this.
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
IX Amendment, Constitution of the United States of America
Powers given to federal government shall not be construed to necessarily block those retained by the People. That means, just because the federal government may have an enumerated power, doesn't mean that necessarily prevents that power from being exercised by the States and the People, as well (such as border defense).
Nowhere in there does it say: "Congress and the Executive branch shall levy taxes to provide for the retirement benefits of the People". Nowhere. I've stated this, before, I'll, apparently, have to do so, again. When George Bush tried to have voluntary rollovers into privatization, the leftists claimed that he was gambling the money of old people away on the Stock Market.
There's a company in Michigan called Jalbert Financial.
40 Oak Hollow Street Southfield, MI 48033-7408
Social Security is already on the fast track to insolvency, thanks to mismanagement by politicians that should we wearing orange jumpsuits.
That shows that it was not only just un-Constitutional (and therefore, illegal), but never stable. People that invest with this firm make gains when their investments pay off, and when the markets take the inevitable downturn, lose nothing.
How's that possible? Ask him. I've heard how he does it, and its obviously a good plan, considering it has a track record of something that neither the Obama regime, nor the Social Security Administration have: success. When you have money taken out of your paycheck to pay for others' retirement, as far as I'm concerned, your Constitutional Rights are being violated.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Amendment IV, Constitution of the United States
When you get to retirement age, that money probably won't be there, and if you're 'making too much money', regardless, they won't let you have any of it. If you die, the government claims it, and your family gets NOTHING. Does that sound American, to you? Is that "right"? Giving the People control of their own lives is American, and Constitutional. As president, I would work with private firms like this, and state governments, to roll all Social Security accounts into these privatized accounts. When that happens, you will be in control over your own retirement, and will quite possibly be looking at a much better payout. In Social Security, the money the government takes from you, can you use it for anything else? No. No, you're not allowed to touch your own money, because now the government has stolen it, and redistributed your wealth to people that don't deserve it. (Trust me: nobody deserves your money, like you do.) In a private account, held by a bank or investment firm like Jalbert Financial, your money is your own, and you control how much goes into it, not the government. If you don't put money in, then it stays in your check. If you decide on putting more in, or less in, that's your decision, too. If you need to access that money, its your money. Once the groundwork is established, roll over their monies into those private accounts. People that have lost money should have their money restored to them, even if it means the federal government has to provide the funds to get their private accounts. People already living off Social Security would have the option of their money being put into such a private account (possibly growing it, over time), or getting all due monies in a lump sum. That way, everybody gets something, but the federal government gets out of the business of retirement account management.
People are too mentally enslaved to swag to realize that the Constitution guarantees equal opportunity, not equal results. Social Security is a social engineering program dedicated solely to people getting equal results (which doesn't happen, by the way). Individual, privately owned accounts give you equal opportunity to save, though there is no guarantee of equal results. Some, naturally, will do better than others. However, there are those among us that just can't stand that people will do better than they will, and live to do nothing but to tear others down with the mob mentality. Taking control over your own retirement is yet another way of putting control of your own life back into your hands, which is what the Founding Fathers meant for us to have, in the first place. This is common wisdom: give a man a fish, he eats for a day; teach a man to fish, and he eats for a lifetime. Expanding on that, when you give a man a fish, what you do is create a dependent. A ward of the state. Someone that lives with their hand out to their provider, and is helpless to do anything against their "benefactor's" wishes. In other words: a slave. Teach a man to fish, and you make someone that is independent. They do not live by the good graces of others, and they have a knowledge that they can propagate to others, and spread the things that are anathema to liberalism: independence and self-sufficiency.
I am Virus-X, Black Avenger 1, and I approve this message.