Why Trumper's Complaints Are Hot Air

I have spent too much time trying to explain what it is that liberals really want, and why Trump is a disaster. I rarely get a reply or an acknowledgment. It seems that most Trumper's minds (especially Fox News viewer's minds) are closed. Facts to most of them are irrelevant. Too many just pass along links to made-up debunked posts. F**k your feelings?

A Christian nation? Dems want to take everyone's guns away? The Second Amendment is an absolute right? LGBTQIA are deviants and undeserving of the same rights as others? Women are second class citizens who can't even make decisions about their own bodies?

Social Security is broken and in need of reform? Minorities are told to go back to their own countries (as if whites were not also immigrants)? Reps are fiscal conservatives (as if)? Universal healthcare coverage is a socialist plot?

The free market is inherently moral and self-correcting? Anti-pollution efforts are job-killing? Worker and consumer protections are evil leftist plots? Financial advisors do not have to put their client's interests first? Leftists are atheists?

Our budget woes are caused by entitlements and especially by Social Security (insurance which is separate by law and has its own revenue stream)? Tax cuts for the wealthy will trickle down onto us peons (pronounced PEE-ons)? It's okay for companies to pay so little that their employees need government assistance (a form of corporate welfare)?

On and on and on and on. Look us in the eye and tell us that you are a Native American. Tell us mass murders are a price of freedom. Explain how sex is binary. Tell us how our not wanting to be.(or inability to be) a corporate CEO or business owner or inheritor of vast wealth makes us undeserving of health care? Explain how our troubles making ends meet is a result of laziness or poor lifestyle choices. Tell us how unpatriotic we are when we think things can be improved, or when we protest injustices or the slaughter of innocents. Explain why the kidnapping and misplacing of people's children on our southern border for the misdemeanor offense of illegal border crossing is justified (never mind that people wanting asylum are legally allowed to cross). Any why migrant workers are not granted work Visas so they could just travel back and forth (oh, right, then employers would have to follow labor laws and pay more).

And mostly, tell us why you are complaining about "doctored pictures and insults" in a humor site dedicated to moderates and liberals?

A reply to a post comment (since removed) in
Blue Mayhem (Political Humor for Democrats and Progressives)

trump's Military Adventure

No, we are not opposing trump's public assassination of an Iranian general because of hatred of him or because we don't care about our soldiers.

Try becoming familiar with Suleimani's history and place in the Iranian government. He was a leader of the Iranian armed forces, not some desert dweller hiding in a cave. There is nothing new in what he was doing. trump chose to attack, not just because of his gut reaction to news reports, but because he has just been impeached. He leads not by informed decision-making, but by "gut feelings."

He has no follow-up plan except for vague threats and promised actions that would be war crimes. We are not safer as a result of his actions. Previous administrations knew the cost of taking the general out would not be worth any perceived gain. Taking out just one man in Iran's vast military organization is not going to change anything.

First trump scraps the nuclear treaty with Iran in favor of no treaty but with increased sanctions to try to prevent what was already prevented in that treaty. His Art of the Deal is fingerpainting. Then he blames Iran for explosions that nobody thought were from an attack. And now he carries out a public assassination of a foreign official in a manner tantamount to a declaration of war, and his staff fumbles around for rationalization of his actions.

What is the evidence that Suleimani was actively planning an imminent major attack? We already know the assassination was trump's reaction to protests at an embassy, not knowledge of a future attack. He distains intelligence and disparages the intelligence services - all of them. Suddenly, he is a believer? During the impeachment crisis? Wow, what timing.

What was different about Suleimani's actions now instead of weeks, months, or years before now? Answer, nothing. trump wanted a war, and he is willing to risk WWIII to get it. He has shown repeatedly that he does not care for the soldiers under his command. Now we are scrambling to place additional protections around military forces and military installations and diplomatic facilities, while trump beats the war drums and puts our soldiers in increased danger.

He has alienated many of our allies, and now none of the remaining ones are backing him up on his latest blunder. Before he was elected, trump talked about Obama starting a war with Iran to increase his chances for re-election. And now what is trump doing in the face of his impeachment and an upcoming election this year? Starting a war with Iran. trump projects his faults and insecurities onto others, constantly blaming them for things he is guilty of. This act of war and his rhetoric following the act are just more of his classic behavior.

Do we dislike trump? The man who posted pictures of a women's march instead of his inauguration crowd, and bragged that his crowd was the biggest ever despite clear evidence to the contrary? Yes. This was on the first day of his presidency! And it's been downhill from there. Oh, but Dems just want a coup to gain power. Right. And if the coup is successful, won't former vice-president Pence, now president Pence, be surprised to find out that he is a Democrat? A coup is designed to put the opposition in power.

trump continuously displays ignorance about The Constitution, and the oath of office he took. Many of us figured long ago that he would try to start a war. And we are horrified to find out that we were right.

This is not about disloyalty, disdain for our military, or hatred of a con artist. It's not treason or pacifism or party loyalty or revenge or a wish that the election outcome was different. This is not about unity in the face of our enemy, or cowardice, or wanting to tax and spend and create a socialist utopia. This is about our wanting to stop one man from his continued efforts to trash our country and our democracy and drag us into a war that did not have to happen.

Iraq resulted in thousands of soldier's deaths, hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths, and countless injuries from a war over a fictitious claim that weapons of mass destruction were being constructed. And now we are supposed to believe claims that a public assassination was needed to stop some vague threat? Gee, let's not be skeptical. Sure, the threat might have been real. But it's not a new threat, and this action by our leader solves nothing. And don't accuse us of wanting soldier's deaths, that is just ridiculous and a cheap attack.

You want to prevent war? Then don't start one.

Social Security Rant #822

Politicians include SocSec figures in their budgets because the surpluses from the buildup of the Trust Fund (to handle baby boomer retirements) made their figures look better. The Trust Fund was not stolen. Those pesky paper IOUs are interest-bearing US Treasury Bonds. That's how the $20-plus trillion debt is financed. The US is not about to default on bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. The Chinese bought US bonds. So did grandma. A default would send the cost of borrowing sky high.

Just because bonds are how the US finances the National Debt does not mean Congress "stole" from the Trust Fund. It's a lie designed to shake faith in the Social Security Retirement and Disability Insurance program. The radical conservatives want to privatize our retirements because they want to make a profit on it. That's their ideology.

SocSec surpluses and deficits are handled by adding to or withdrawing from the Trust Fund. Nothing goes into or comes out of general revenues. Social Security has its own revenue stream. Payroll taxes and interest on the Treasury Bonds. People claim that Social Security is government's biggest expense. It's not its biggest expense because it is not an expense of the federal budget at all. Do they also point out payroll tax revenues? No. Baby boomers are retiring, so the extra costs will come from the Trust Fund. That does not mean that SocSec is broke or will be in the red as so many claim. Would you be broke with $3 trillion in assets?

This reply is long-winded because I want to make it clear exactly how Social Security works. It is not a savings plan. It is insurance. Congress is supposed to tweak the payroll tax rates and adjust salary caps (above which income is not taxed) to keep the program fully funded for a projected 75 years. The GOP has been blocking those adjustments in order to convince people that the program needs saving, that it needs to be reformed. So now SocSec is only fully funded through 2034, after which it can only pay out 80% of benefits through the year 2095. 2034 is when the planned drawdown for the baby boomers will zero out the Trust Fund.

So what happens when benefits are cut and retirement ages are raised? The date that the Trust Fund zeros out changes slightly. That's it. It does not change the federal government's budget deficits or the National Debt by one red cent. Oh, sure, politician's budget figures change, but only because they loved including SocSec surpluses to make their figures look better. In reality, the surpluses went into the Trust Fund. But now they are stuck because they don't want those planned-for deficits making their budget figures look worse. OMG, we need to reform Social Security! Cut benefits! Raise retirement ages! Save Social Security!

The financial sector wants to privatize Social Security because they want to profit from it. They want their 20% cut, just like the returns they are getting with health care insurance. I don't want my retirement in the hands of cons who are notorious for making people's retirements disappear. Remember Bernie Madoff and his pretend brokerage transactions? Remember Trump's revocation of Obama's executive order that financial planners must have the interests of their clients take precedence? Brokers who buy and sell stocks in their client's portfolios to earn commissions (churning) until nothing is left? Business managers who run off to tropical paradises with their clients' savings? In contrast, Social Security will always be there. Unless politicians take it away from us. Don't believe the lies. Vote for people who have your interests at heart.

Link to YouTube video (shared as a post on Facebook):

Trump Wants to Slash Social Security Disability Benefits—“This Will KiII People”