No doubt in my mind that lower-ranking NYPD officers are taking the fall for their bosses on this. Patrol officers don’t do this on their own — there’s always someone higher up keeping track.
The Washington Post ran a startling story on their front page yesterday that would scare the crap out of most people — if you didn’t already understand how Social Security actually works, and that the Village elites will say just about anything to destroy it under the guise of “saving” it. Rich Eskow did a great job pulling it apart in this scathing HuffPost piece (you should go read it all):
If we had the space we’d deconstruct the entire piece. Instead we’ll use a selected sample, beginning with the first line:
” Last year, as a debate over the runaway national debt gathered steam in Washington, Social Security passed a treacherous milestone. It went “cash negative.”
Holy cow, that’s a lot of deception in one sentence. First, the sentence conflates the national debt with Social Security. But Social Security is expressly forbidden by law from contributing to the debt! It must be entirely self-sustaining. So why connect the two in one sentence?
And that “treacherous milestone” isn’t not treacherous at all. The plan’s huge surplus, currently $2.6 trillion, was amassed because planners know that baby boomers would retire someday. That supposedly “treacherous” switch to “cash negative” has been anticipated for decades.
“Now, Social Security is sucking money out of the Treasury. This year, it will add a projected $46 billion to the nation’s budget problems, according to projections by system trustees.”
No. Social Security is entirely self-funded. This is a falsehood. And note the use of the word “sucking.”
“Replacing cash lost to a one-year payroll tax holiday will require another $105 billion.”
The President and Congress agreed to use the payroll taxes that fund Social Security as the mechanism for a tax break. That was a bad idea, in my opinion, precisely because it opened the program up to this kind of deception. But it’s misleading at best to complain that this is adding to the nation’s budget woes.
“Lawmakers in both parties are ducking the issue, wary of agitating older voters and their advocates in Washington, who have long targeted politicians who try to tamper with federal retirement benefits.”
The word “ducking” is straight out of the Pete Peterson playbook. If you’re not willing to back unnecessary cuts to Social Security to please billionaire political patrons like Peterson, you’re somehow a cowardly politician.
Another Peterson trick is to ignore disabled recipients of Social Security and focus on the elderly, painting them as demanding, selfish, and cruel for expecting the benefits they’d paid for all their working lives. (Remember Alan Simpson’s “greedy geezers” remark?) In Montgomery’s case, these aggressive oldsters are “agitated” and have a practice of “targeting politicians” who cross them.
Continue Reading »
So they work for us instead of against us.
There are at least three varieties of scary songs — novelty numbers, done for laughs; songs that have dark lyrics but aren’t all that scary; and songs (“compositions” is a better word) that actually sound scary and give you the creeps. More here.
Someone asked me, “If a stolen bicycle upsets you this much, how would you react if you found out you had terminal cancer?” I replied, “I would die, I guess. That’s a stupid question.” More here.