The Paternalistic World View and 401Ks

https://www.vox.com/2019/3/27/18174385/retirement-savings-401-k

A VOX article that lets us look iniside the mind of the left as to their understanding of the "common man", and what ought be done relative to "average people". They believe that humans CAN'T learn to save for the future, so the important job falls on business and the government -- "the elite",

There’s a reason, it turns out, why employers didn’t hand retirement planning off to workers: 401(k)s are terrible at ensuring that those who need to save for retirement do. Indeed, over the same period in which 401(k)s expanded, the share of working-age households at risk of being financially unprepared at age 65 jumped from 31 percent (in 1983) to more than 53 percent (in 2010). Indeed, the terribleness of 401(k)s helped spark a new field of behavioral economics, which showed that voluntary plans in which people manage their own investments defy everything we know about how the brain works.

Reading the short book "The Millionaire Next Door" explains that most of the wealthy in America are people that follow a simple rule ... spend less than you make, put the savings in something that goes up in value. Naturally, there are LOTS of forces trying to tell you that is "foolishness". "What will a million dollars be worth in 50 years anyway?" Is one of the things I've heard ... the answer ; "A million dollars more than zero". As a corollary, MUCH more than a million dollars MINUS a bunch of debt and interest paid out of your pocket!

There are a whole host of reasons that people are more unprepared for retirement today than in '83 ... massive regulation, the economy being basically stagnant for a decade from '08-'16, crushing taxes including ever more crushing FICA tax (in 1975 it was 5.85 on the first 14k, today it is 6.2 on the first 127K! $819 vs $7,874), lots of inflation (much of it undeclared once the government got into the "inflation adjusted" business), no interest on savings, crushing medical costs made 3-5x MORE crushing on those who DID save by BOcare ... the list is just endless and much of the "help" keeping people down is courtesy of the the elite through the Davos crowd, government, and Deep / Administrative State.

However, the BIG reason remains that FICA gives people a very false sense of "security". If it had been created as what it actually is -- "old age POVERTY welfare" (and a giant new federal tax), which would only go to people without savings, assets, pensions and other income streams, then a much higher percentage of people would save more. It **IS** welfare for elderly, and increasingly if you are not impoverished in old age your small benefit is taxed away from you anyway.

In other words, like typical government, those that pay the most get the least -- or nothing.

**IF** the government actually wanted to "help the irresponsible common man", they would do what W proposed ... put something like the FICA percentage in private non-profit fiduciary managed fund of broad indices of stocks, bonds, property, commodities, metals, etc. NOTHING is "certain", and CERTAINLY NOT THE GOVERNMENT! (see numerous failed governments over history ... Venezuela currently, 100's of them around the globe over the past century or so, with runaway inflation in Germany in the early 1920's being a well known case with an "advanced" nation.

Of course, telling the truth would have never given the giant boost to government spending that FICA did. It was set up so that everyone could imagine getting it, but the original dates you could get it insured that very few would actually collect, and most of those would not collect for long. It was a HUGE "win win" for the government ASSUMING "an ever growing employed population, an ever expanding economy, and not very many people reaching retirement age" -- all assumptions that have proven spectacularly wrong like most "government projections".

It really was successful for what it was supposed to be -- a massive vote buying Democrat party operation.

The reality of it all is that "there is no free lunch" ... the vast majority of people (and businesses) MUST spend less than earned and put the remainder in something that goes up in value. When they don't, the person, business or country will go bankrupt and have NOTHING!

"Liberalism" may look and sound "paternalistic", but no good father would really follow policies that are guaranteed to lead to bankruptcy! The idea that the population is less responsible than the government is obvious idiocy in even a democratic republic! Who votes in the supposed "wise men" that are going to care for us all? The same idiots that can't spend less than they make and put the difference in something that rises in value!

Those elected "wise men" have run up over $200 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities ON TOP of the over $20 TRILLION in US debt. On top of that, state and local debt exceeds $3 TRILLION!

Remember, the people running that up are the "elite"  VOX assures you ought to have MORE power because they are "smart and responsible" and you can count on them taking "good care of you"!

Naturally, those folks will tell you that anyone that advises "God, Guns and Gold" is a COMPLETE idiot ... you would not want to be called names by the elite would you?

How Republicans Became Red

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/when-republicans-were-blue-and-democrats-were-red-104176297/

Good little bit of recent history. How did color of socialism, rebellion, anger, blood and Satan become the designated color for Republicans in the US?

The Smithsonian assures us it was a complete ACCIDENT!

Early in the article they state the obvious ...

“For years, both parties would do red and blue maps, but they always made the other guys red,” said Chuck Todd, political director and chief White House correspondent for NBC News. “During the Cold War, who wanted to be red?”
Indeed, prior to the breakup of the Soviet Union little more than two decades ago, “red was a term of derision,” noted Mitchell Stephens, a New York University professor of journalism and author of A History of News.

Yes, and blue is the color of water, cool, calm, the Union Army, the sky, etc.-- and it is the most popular color, with 40% of men prefering it and 30% of women -- oh, and only about 10% of each prefer red. I'm CERTAIN that the choice of red for Republicans was PURELY because their name starts with an "R" -- I mean if that was the reason why would you not make the Democrats "Dirt Brown"? 

BTW, if you go look at the color selections, blue and GREEN would be the obvious choices!

Why the Smithsonian -- the museum of the Deep / Administrative State even finds us an EXPERT to verify that it really makes no difference! 

Sara Quinn, a visual journalist now at the Poynter Institute in Florida, said she sees no particular advantage to either color.
“Red is usually very warm and it comes forward to the eye. Blue tends to be a recessive color, but a calming color,” she said.

You know, such things have a tendency to raise a red flag for me! 

CNN Does Parody Of Itself On Clinton Impeachment

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/08/opinions/clinton-impeachment-gop-hypocrisy-avlon/index.html

As with most things, Jesus said it best Matt 7:5 "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

The rub is of course that we are ALL hypocrites all the time. We see our own behavior and that of our tribe or "team" to be excuseable at worst if it is indeed "wrong" at all. In 1999, the watchword for CNN, NPR, NY Times, etc was "Move On!", "It's a private matter, only about consentual sex!" 

The article closes with: 

Looking at the GOP's approach to Clinton's impeachment trial 20 years ago, it's clear there is now a double standard when it comes to Trump. Hypocrisy used to be the unforgivable sin in American politics. But that seems to be one more casualty of Trump's presidency.

Duh!  It was actually completely clear then as it was when Jesus said Matt 7:5. Clinton lied under oath, had sexual relations with an employee (illegal under US statutes, consensual or not -- oral sex provided by an employee to a McDonald's manager will get them fired too!)  More importantly, Clinton was PRESIDENT when he did those things -- Trump was a private citizen. What CNN primarily gives us is the billionth proof of Jesus's teaching -- the log in their own eye has completely blinded them!

I loved this paragraph:

Trump's former attorney general, Jeff Sessions, took a strong stand against lying from the oval office. After Clinton was acquitted by the Senate on two articles of impeachment in February 1999, Sessions spoke out about the impact it could have on the culture of the country. "It is crucial to our system of justice that we demand the truth. I fear that an acquittal of this President will weaken the legal system by providing an option for those who consider being less than truthful in court," he said.

Unless CNN is happy about Trump being president, they actually agree with Sessions! Convict Slick in the Senate (as he should have been under the Nixon standard), and there would be no Trump as president! Just as Sessions said, Clinton getting away with it lowered the bar and one result of that is TRUMP!

I'd argue that the "Nixon standard" is actually the root of the problem. Republicans hopefully (but foolishly it turns out), DID cross the aisle to side with the Deep State, Media and Democrats who hated Nixon with the same kind of hatred that they now hate Trump. Republicans thought that evidence of a president "obstructing justice" was a worthy standard. Democrats however didn't expect it to be a standard for DEMOCRAT presidents, only for Republican ones! Which became totally clear in the Clinton impeachment.

It is pretty much a self defeating standard. If makes it reasonable for the opposition party, which is going to include the Deep State and the Media in the D case, to attempt to "investigate" a president of the other party. When they do, the president is almost certain to attempt to prevent the "investigation" (often just a "fishing expedition" or "witch hunt"), from destroying himself, his friends, and possibly his administration. When you are president, self defence quickly becomes "obstruction of justice".

In the Clinton case, there was a "there there" ... Paula Jones was a real person, Monica Lewinsky, Kathleen Wily and Juanita Broderick were all real as well, and in the age of "#METOO", more people acknowledge that. In the case of the Mueller investigatition we now know there was nothing to investigate in the first place. The entire operation was purely a political op.

I'd be remiss if I did not point out a classic CNN dodge here. Clinton WAS impeached in the House, so where the vote counted was in the SENATE.  Thus, in a classic case of "When accused of killing three men and a dog, he promptly produced the dog alive", CNN gives us this:

When it was all over, a handful of House Democrats voted against Clinton, and several Republicans crossed partisan lines to acquit the president on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. So while partisan lines did largely hold, there were still some politicians who put their principles ahead of party loyalty.

However, the internet makes it easy to look up. NO DEMOCRAT crossed party lines in the Senate to cast a guilty vote, and since it wasn't going to pass without those votes 5-10 Republicans crossed lines for likely political rather than moral purposes. A bit different than what CNN would like to you think! 

A two-thirds vote (67 senators) was required to remove Clinton from office. Fifty senators voted to remove Clinton on the obstruction of justice charge and 45 voted to remove him on the perjury charge; no member of his own Democratic Party votedguilty on either charge.

Jesus remains 100% correct -- and CNN remains 50% correct (at best). They can see faults in the opposition (Republicans) very well, and they are completely blind to the faults on their own side! 

Mueller Steele History's Dustbin

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/435872-mueller-confirms-the-steele-dossier-belongs-in-the-dustbin-of-history

A good review of the obvious of the past 2-3 years. Russia is an energy producing country which in no way ever wanted pro-fracking Trump to win. However in ll cases they like to make themselves look good and the US look bad.

They exposed Hillary's rigging the primaries over Bernie, cheered Trump as the "people's choice" whom they like everyone else figured to lose badly, and then immediately went anti-Trump when he was elected.

The US left is completely single minded -- POWER, no matter what the cost. They care not at all about the US position in the world, and even less about their effect on "deploreables" that happen to live withing the borders of a nation that they know to be completely corrupt because they are the corruption running BOistan via the levers of the Administrative / Deep State!

Witch Hunt Fails to Produce Witches

https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/the-american-media-destroyed-themselves-over-mueller/

Anybody that thought about this for more than a couple seconds knew there was no way in hell Russia would try to elect Trump -- they produce energy, he is totally pro-fracking and Hillary was totally anti-fracking. The Russkies spent millions to stop fracking and they seem generally less stupid than the US.

The linked summary is worth going off and reading -- a nice litany of the "indictments" for things totally unrelated to the supposed purpose of the special counsel.

However, again, if you have a brain you know the actual purpose -- same as the Kavenaugh calumny: To send a message to anyone with any thoughts of working with, being associated with, or possibly even supporting Trump or any ideas that do not 100% align with progressive dogma! Like the 80+ "Trump associates", or "people that might have some connection with Trump or support of Trump" who find themselves under subpeona "just in case" ... meaning "just in case" the Democrats or Deep State (but I repeat myself) can find anything to charge them with. OR, just in case they can haul them up in front of a judge, get them to state a date wrong (like Scooter Libby), and then charge them with "perjury".

What does it take to get a clear majority of BOistanis enraged enough to vote for some real change? We had been "changing" to a totalitarian state operated by the Federal Bureaucracy since at least the "New Deal", with warp drive kicking around LBJ and then Watergate. When BO was elected, the "hope" seemed to be that the dopes in fly over country would just shut up, take drugs and die!

When they elected Trump, the left decided to "resist" the results of a valid election and here we are. Are they going to apologize, admit that the whole thing was a scam, and that not only did they manage to make America "not great", they managed to turn it into a lawless banana republic where things like the Mueller witch hunt happen and nobody that cooked the whole thing up goes to jail, or ever even says "sorry, never mind".

Perhaps they really meant to investigate Trump for "Rushing to a Conclusion" as opposed to "Russian Collusion"?

Proof The Legal System Is Political

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/03/why-is-trump-losing-so-often-in-court.php

The idea of "law" is that the honorable judge rules ONLY on the LAW, not on their bias. As Joshua 1:7 says “Only be strong and very courageous, to observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest have good success whithersoever thou goest”

Almost half of the 63 rulings in question (29 of them) came from jurisdictions within the left-wing Ninth Circuit. This percentage is wildly out-of-line with a random distribution. In other words, the numbers the Post touts are the result of extreme bias.

The linked article points out the obvious,  that in BOistan, "law" is just another political process. Any "Judge" that makes their decisions on the basis of politics ... Democrat OR Republican is no Judge at all -- they are a political bureaucrat, just like the millions we have in Federal, State and Local governments.

BOistan is a left wing state run by a massive bureaucracy -- elected, appointed, hired, the power is in "The Party" (TP-D)

Deciding Decency

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/432137-biden-responds-to-criticism-over-calling-pence-decent-guy

There was a time in America when people actually cared about "decency", whatever that concept might entail in BOistan. It certainly can't be a fixed concept, since that would mean that neither Hillary or BO were "decent" when they ran for president in 2008, since both were opposed to gay "marriage".

I nearly spit my coffee out through my nose this AM listening to NPR's "Political Junkie" program as both host Kerri Miller and host Ken Gruden agreed that it was CERTAINLY appropriate for Biden to walk back his comment about Pence being "decent", because you just could not be "decent" in BOistan and not be wholly in support of gay "marriage".

Ergo, practicing Christians are no longer "decent" in BOistan. No real surprise, because they had all but been officially called "deploreables" in 2016 ... in fact IRREDEEMABLE Deploreables! Not much to do with "irredeemables" than to put them to death! Remember, the left was once the bastion of "rehabilitation" ... for rapists, murderers, you name it. Maybe all but white Christians now?

Imagine if the media would ask Ilhan Omar if she supported gay "mariage". I would assume that as a Muslim, she does not, but how would we know? No need for our "adversarial" media to ask her -- she is after all on their side! Which of course "by definition" means she is a "decent person".

"Progress" in BOistan is breakneck ... the "progressive" party candidates in 2008 were not even "decent people" by the agreed standards of the BOistani elite in 2019.

I've completely given up trying to figure out what you will have to celebrate in 2029 to be considered "decent" by "The Party" (TP-D)  ... well, what will you have to celebrate beyond infanticide, socialism, gay "marriage", an unpredictable number of genders ... and ????

Ah, "progress"!