Originally posted by whodeyExcellent book.I am sure all of my progressive friends here will rush out to read it now that utherpendragon has endorsed it!😉
As I have told you in the past, you need to read Liberty and Tyranny by Mark Lavine. He writes, "In the 1930's during the Great Depression, the Statists successfully launched a counterrevolution that radically and fundamentally altered the nature of American society. FDR and an overwhelmingly Democratic congress through an array of federal projects, entitle ...[text shortened]... grantor, property owner, tenant, insurer, health-care provider, and pension guarantor."
Originally posted by utherpendragonI downloaded a pdf of it and read it a month or two back when whodey was using it as a source for his theory that the W.H.O. deliberately carried out genocide back in the 1970s far in excess of anything Hitler, Stalin and Mao are accused of doing.
Excellent book.I am sure all of my progressive friends here will rush out to read it now that utherpendragon has endorsed it!😉
Originally posted by FMFI dont recall that part off hand. Is that what Lavine claimed?
I downloaded a pdf of it and read it a month or two back when whodey was using it as a source for his theory that the W.H.O. deliberately carried out genocide back in the 1970s far in excess of anything Hitler, Stalin and Mao are accused of doing.
1 edit
Originally posted by utherpendragonSince they won't, I'll simply have to bring the book to them. Here is what Lavine says about FDR and social security.
Excellent book.I am sure all of my progressive friends here will rush out to read it now that utherpendragon has endorsed it!😉
"In response to critism that the payroll tax was regressive, Roosevelt answered, "Those taxes were never a problem of economics. They are politics all the way through. We put those payroll taxes there so as to give the countributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program." The taxes may never have been a problem of economics to Roosevelt, but the economic problem he unleashed on American society has become immense, thanks to the politics he played with the people and their future. And it continues to this day, as he knew it would. Social Security is a widely popular program because the individual has been decieved by the statist to believe that the government had been prudently and diligently managing his accumulated pension investment in his Social Security account, which he presumes to be funded by his own payroll taxes. He is led to believe that he is a stakeholder in the system and that he has earned whatever benefits the statist may cook up. And this view is reinforced with a variety of propoganda tools, including the government regularly sending the individual information through the mail giving him the false impression that his payroll taxes have been set aside for his use upon retirement based on some incomprehensible formula. It is a thorough ruse involving all parts of the government--from the elected branches to the Social Security administration. AS the late economist Milton Fiedman explained, "To preserve the fiction that social security is insurance, federal government interest bearing bonds of corresponding amount have been deposited in a so-called trust fund. That is, one branch of the government, the Treasury, has given an interest bearing IOU in another branch, the Social Security Administration. Each year thereafter, the Treasury gives the Social Security Administration additional IOU's to cover the interest due. The only way that the Treasury can redeem its debt to the Social Security Adinistration is to borrow the money from the public, run a surpluss in its other activites or have the Federal Reserve print the money--the same alternatives that would be open to it to pay Social Security benefits it there were to trust fund. But the accounting sleight-of-hand of the bogus trust fund is counted on to conceal this fact from a gullible public"
Stung by critics, the Social Securty Administration responds by insisting, "Far from being worthless IOU's, the investments hald by the trust funds are backed by the full faith and credit of the US government. The government has always repaid Social Security with interest. Of course, lost on the agnecy is its affirmation that Social Security is not based on any known insurance model. The taxpayers are, after all, the full faith and credit behind the US government. The angency holds trillions of dollars in IOU's that the taxpayers have unwittingly assumed and will one day have to make good on, because there are no funded accounts from which individuals can draw. The payroll taxes are spent by the government from the moment they are declared from the employees' salaries.......................................
"But the statist has always considered Social Security the foundation for building his counterrevolution. Roosevelt and a relatively small band of cronies, most of whom came from academia and the labor movement and worked their will in the halls of the bureaucracy and Congress--usually out of the public view--had wanted to include government run universal health care as part of Social Security. But it was seen as too politically ambitious even for an oeverwhelmingly Democratic Congress. They knew if they persisted incrementally, however, manipulating public information and perceptions and adding more and more people to Social Securities rolls, over time they would achieve their ends. In 1940, about 220,000 people recieved monthly Social Security checks. By 2004, the number reached 47 million, plus another 7 million received cash payments under Supplemental Security Income. In 1930, Social Security is expected to cover 84 million people and consume 6% of the nation's economy, up from 4%. How could the federal government legally force employers and employees to "contribute" to an "insurance" program--particularly a program that was conceived in deceit and punishes their children and grandchildren? The program's constitutionality was challenged and in 1937 teh Supreme Court ruled in Helvering vs. Davis that "the proceeds of both taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal-revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way". Therefore, Roosevelt was insisting to the public that Social Security was an insurance program based on segregating funds and earned benefits, his lawyers were in Court insisting that it was no such thing--and the Supreme Court played along and betrayed the Constitution. This clearly is not what the Framers had in mind. In a letter to Edmond Pendleton, a Virginia delegate to the First Continental Congress as well as an influential statesman, James Madison wrote, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinate one subject to particular exceptions." .......In 2008, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that if Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid go unchagned, by 2082 the tax rate for the lowest income tax bracket would increase from 10% to 25%; the tax rate on incomes in the current 25% bracket would have to be increased to 63%; and the tax rate of the highest bracket would have to be raised from 35% to 88%. Such tax rates would significantly reduce economic activity and would create serious problems with tax avoidence and tax evasion. Revenues will fall significantly short of the amount needed to finance the growth of spending; therefore, tax rates at such levels would probably not be economically feasible. Despite dire warnings from the CBO, from the former comptroller general of the US, and from various trustees that these programs are unsustainable and demant urgent attention, the pillaging of future generations not only continues, but the Statist proposes much more of it in the form of government run "natinoal health care" or "universal health care"."
6 edits
Originally posted by utherpendragonLavine claimed that the decrease in use of DDT in the third world causes millions of deaths in the third world. Even though WHO had not banned its use officially like the US had, he provided sources that showed pressure placed eonomically on these third world countries not to use DDT least their imports be shunned. And indeed, the governments in these third world countries are attempting to once again use DDT to prevent millions of unecessary deaths a year, however, due to the stigma created about the chemical combined with the eonomic pressures this has been hard to achieve. Basically Lavine is pointing to the fact that the envirostatist movement sprung from this movement against DDT and then shows the damage done in its wake. Now the flavor of the month is carbon emissions. Now they would have us believe that CO2 is now to be considered a pollutant just like they did convincing us that DDT was a horrible chemical that kills everything it touches when, in fact, if used proplery in the third world will save millions of lives a year.
I dont recall that part off hand. Is that what Lavine claimed?
Originally posted by utherpendragonIt's what whodey claimed [..."Tens of millions sentenced to death"...] having been duped by Lavine's deceitful prose.
I dont recall that part off hand. Is that what Lavine claimed?
Thread 121708
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFWell I believe that tens of millions have died that could have been saved by DDT in the thrid world. It is no secret that millions die every year from malaria and it is also no secret as to the effectiveness of DDT, if properly used, in defending agasint the desease. Combine that with the affordability of the chemical and what you come up with after 30 some years from the DDT enviro-statist scare is that millions have died uncessarily.
It's what whodey claimed [..."Tens of millions sentenced to death"...] having been duped by Lavine's deceitful prose.
Thread 121708
Originally posted by whodeyThe whole W.H.O. thing was about its proper use - your ideology-driven lies about a "ban" notwithstanding. DDT was used throughtout the 1970s and 1980s and 1990s. Also DDT was by no means the only weapon against malaria so attributing "tens of millions" of deaths to a period when it was used more properly and carefully, is just deceptive. Malaria in the U.S. was almost eradicated even before DDT was developed or deployed. Malaria still kills millions of people, even with DDT available. Your previous complete denial of its fully documented side-effects makes clear your ideological motivation here. Along comes a book by a radio shock jock, deceptively worded and carefully selective, and .... boing ... whodey is in motion.
Well I believe that tens of millions have died that could have been saved by DDT in the thrid world. It is no secret that millions die every year from malaria and it is also no secret as to the effectiveness of DDT, if properly used, in defending agasint the desease. Combine that with the affordability of the chemical and what you come up with after 30 some years from the DDT enviro-statist scare is that millions have died uncessarily.
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFThose who are interested can read the thread. That is all I can say. I just think it a bit disingenuous to ignore the sources I provided which showed that the average joe in Africa who could be using DDT were spooked. They are spooked about the possible harm it could do to them as well as economic pressures that may be inflicted if the slightest amount of DDT is detected on their exports. So even though it was available and eventually endorsed by local governments in Africa the production was dampened as well as the demand for it all because of the initial movement.
The whole W.H.O. thing was [b]about its proper use - your ideology-driven lies about a "ban" notwithstanding. DDT was used throughtout the 1970s and 1980s and 1990s. Also DDT was by no means the only weapon against malaria so attributing "tens of millions" of deaths to a period when it was used more properly and carefully, is just deceptive. Malaria in the U ...[text shortened]... ck jock, deceptively worded and carefully selective, and .... boing ... whodey is in motion.[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyI am not arguing right now about whether or not Social Security or Medicare are good things or whether they should be administered differently.
The point is that federalism has been dying a slow death. Is this a "good" thing? Well if you are a progressive the answer is yes. What you want is state run this and that at a centralized level.
Regarding Social Security and Medicare, however, there are identifiable issues now that they are in place. As I have stated time and time again social securit ...[text shortened]... ngs about it. The bottom line is that change is needed whether you be a statist or otherwise.
What I am arguing is that if there's any chance of EVER making changes to these programs (or eliminating them or whatever), there need to be some very SPECIFIC proposals being made by SOMEONE in the political arena.
As long as no one makes any SPECIFIC proposals, NOTHING will change, and the system designed by the "statists" will remain in place eternally.
So whodey, maybe you can get the ball rolling. The great movement to revolutionize Social Security and Medicare starts NOW. Propose an alternative to the current system, and propose a strategy that will convince most of the masses to support this alternative.
Originally posted by MelanerpesThe ball is rolling via such movements as the Tea parties. Granted, they have no one running for office but they now have a voice. In fact, I think it a mistake for them to begin a political party for candidates to run. Instead, I think they should stay on the side lines and bludgen political figures who go awry. I am happy with the success they have had with the Dems in office now. I just hope the heat is turned up when the Repuklicans come into office.
I am not arguing right now about whether or not Social Security or Medicare are good things or whether they should be administered differently.
What I am arguing is that if there's any chance of EVER making changes to these programs (or eliminating them or whatever), there need to be some very SPECIFIC proposals being made by SOMEONE in the political a ...[text shortened]... em, and propose a strategy that will convince most of the masses to support this alternative.