Antbrain

The Balanced Budget and Social Security.

Base Problem:
This country cannot continue to drive up the debt year after year, eventually our economic system will collapse under the weight of the National Debt. Only a fool thinks otherwise.

Solution:
Balance the federal budget.

Problem #1:
To date all attempts at a Balanced Budget Amendment have failed.

Current status:
The Republican congress is claiming a balanced budget by 1999. However this claim is based on the trust funds (especially the Social Security Trust Fund), as being "off budget". What this means is that even when the Congress says that federal spending is balanced, we will in fact still be borrowing about ninety billion dollars per year. (that figure is a guest-a-meant on my part.)

Problem #2:
The only way to achieve true balance, (the point were the debt actually begins to diminish), is that the trust funds must be eliminated. (Or their functions drastically altered.)

List if trust funds:

Problem #3:
The Social Security Trust Fund being the largest, any attempt to alter it will draw intense opposition propaganda from the Democratic party. They will state that such action threatens Social Security. I regret my opinion but I believe that the American people will believe it, they will oppose any legislation that might threatens their retirement system. Despite the fact that the revenue generated from the trust funds originates out of our income tax, the American people will not allow it to be zeroed out, falsely believing that it produces funds for Social Security.

Solution:
Increase the OASDI tax to cover loss of the trust fund, and lower income tax by an equal amount, since the trust fund no longer draws from it. Basically it has no effect on the taxpayer.

Big problem:
Expecting Congress to return any tax money to the taxpayers is expecting too much.

Most likely action:
Nothing will be done, the debt will continue to grow, albeit at a slower rate.

Final outcome:
We get screwed.

The only way out???

Is this conclusion wrong? Please tell me how.

1997

In the past of course the budget ran a deficit, now the budget runs a surplus.
When we did run a deficit, the Debt increased, as expected.
Now that we run a surplus the debt still increases.
Aren’t you a bit curious on when the debt goes down?,

The Gun Control Debate.

The only real debate that supports any gun control legislation, is that it might prevent loss of life. This begs the question, how many fatalities per year are you willing to tolerate? I personally accept a mortality rate of 50,000 deaths per year, no sweat. If you think this makes me a bad person. Better think again. You accept 50,000 death per year (with no sweat), so does president Bill Clinton and Hillary to. The most avid gun control advocate accepts 50,000 deaths per year (again, with no sweat), and a like number of maimed or otherwise permanently injured people.

OK, I am not talking about firearm related deaths, 50,000 is how many people die in automobile accidents each year. I am using this statistic to make the point that each of us believes in an acceptable mortality. And no one promotes the banning of automobiles. So you can step down from your perch of moral superiority.

If you desire to reduce our mortality just which of the two institutions are you willing to live without:
your car,
or
your constitutional right to bare arms.

I can live in a free country without my car, but I’m not so sure of the same without my constitutional rights.

If you have a sound logical argument for me to give up my guns, I will probably invite you to offer it. However, if you have a sound logical argument for me to give up my right to bear arms. I will probably invite you to go piss up a rope. (respectfully, of course.)

If you wish to promote automobile safety, count me in.
If you wish to promote firearm safety, again I am all for it.

To those who will perish in the coming year in-order to maintain our constitutional right to own a gun, I can only offer my most deepest sympathy. But this mortality is what we accept in order to live in a free country.

To the thousands who will perish in the coming year in-order to maintain the privilege of driving our cars, again there's not much I can offer except for my most deepest sympathy. But this mortality is what we .accept in order to be able to drive down to the local bar for happy hour, or maybe the hair dresser.

Happy Motoring.

The Bill of Rights
Amendment II
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. (The Founding Fathers.) so piss off. (respectfully)

P.S. for the sake of yourself, your family and your neighbors please drive safely and keep your guns out of the reach of small hands.

Top-O-Page.

Historical revisionist

Many contemporary historians like to rewrite what we use to consider as historical truth. In doing so they force us to question the accuracy of the historians of ancient times. Of course, if we decide we can not trust the ancient historians, then why should we trust the contemporary historian?. After all they are both historians.

In a pessimistic culture (like ours), historians write pessimistic history.

In a optimistic culture (200 years ago), historians write optimistic history.

With this "human nature" handicap am I likely to ever know the absolute no shit truth about (as an example) George Washington and the Cherry tree? Probably not, but I won't lose sleep over it. Since I am (despite some of the things I have written here) basically an optimistic type of guy I think I'll go with the ancient historians. Perhaps I will lose some technical accuracy, but I think maybe I'll gain some wisdom, which is not a bad trade off.

Wisdom such as: "I can not tell a lie." that leads to "Honesty is the best policy". etc.