San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, October 2, 2015

Samuelson Is A Socialist On Social Security

Robert J. Samuelson, along with Paul Krugman, is probably the most popular and well known economist in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika. Both are committed Keynesians who never met a government spending or wealth transfer program they didn't like.  Both are extraordinarily popular with the media because they represent that form of socialism that is wrongly labeled compassionate and caring.  Last week Samuelson wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post Writers Group that showed up in my Denver Post.  The column was entitled "A safety net, not a gravy train" and it contained Samuelson's doctrine that Social Security is unfair because payouts discriminate against the poor, whatever that means.  Let me tell you a little bit about it.
Samuelson has written in the past about all sorts of inequalities and alleged "gaps" in government programs that allegedly harm the poor and enrich the wealthy.  He believes government needs to get involved to fix all of those non-existent problems.  He begins his column by writing, "And now comes the life expectancy gap.  It may change the national conversation  over Social Security and an aging society -- for the worse."  Oh no!  Go tell it on the mountain!  Samuelson has discovered a new gap and it is a horrible and terrible thing.  Only the actions of an omnipotent and beneficent government, as guided by Samuelson himself, will be sufficient to fix this problem.
Samuelson has discovered that the "process of aging" is "skewed in favor of the middle and upper middle classes."  The National Academies of Sciences is a quasi-government institution, established by the federal government way back in the time of King Lincoln, to provide biased information to career politicians and bureaucrats that will justify their intrusions into the free market.  The NAC conducted a study recently and determined that "among men life expectancy has improved substantially for the richest 60 percent but for the poorest 40 percent gains are tiny or non-existent."  According to the study, "for the richest fifth of men, there was a 7.1 year increase in life expectancy for those born in 1960 compared to those born in 1930.  Meanwhile, for the poorest fifth of men life expectancy fell slightly for those born in 1960 when compared to those born in 1930."  Samuelson concludes, "As a generalization, the higher your income the longer you will live."  Not surprisingly, Samuelson sees this information as a problem that requires government action.
Why is this a problem?  Samuelson explains when he writes, "Social Security and many programs for the aged were designed to favor the poor, but the longer life expectancies of the middle and upper-middle classes offset this bias.  Because richer male workers collect payments for more years than the poor, their lifetime benefits are much larger."  Horror of horrors!  Those who pay more end up, on average, getting more back.  This is terrible!  No self respecting socialist can allow this state of affairs to continue.  The rich exist to be soaked, not to get some of their money back when they retire.  The poor exist to be pandered to, not to die at a younger age because they make stupid lifestyle choices.  Samuelson wraps up his alleged problem by declaring, "We are spending the most money for the longest periods to protect people who need the least protection, because they have more private savings and pension benefits than do the poor....Does this make sense for us as a society?  To me the answer is no."  Well Robert, I have no idea who the "we" is that you write about in your column.  And I also have no idea who this "society" person is you write about.  But I do know that what you describe makes perfect sense to me.  Those who pay more into the system should get more out of the system. That is simply being fair.  But being fair is not what socialism is all about. Socialism is about casting the "poor," however they may be defined, as victims of the rich in desperate need of government transfer payments.
Samuelson makes the same mistake all socialists make.  He assumes that the poor are moral and the rich are immoral.  That allows him to justify his transfer payment schemes.  Study after study has shown that many, if not most, of the people populating the bottom 20% of the income population smoke more, are more overweight, have less health insurance, go to the doctor less often, exercise less, eat inferior diets and when compared to higher income cohorts consume more drugs, especially alcohol.  (The only group that consumes more alcohol than the poor are career politicians, but that is a different blog post.)  Indeed, just considering the effects of alcohol consumption alone can account for a huge portion of the lower income that exists in the lower 20% of the income population.  Heavy drinking and productive work do not go hand in hand.  Now I must ask a simple question.  Why should the government force me to subsidize the retirements of people who made the voluntary decisions to smoke, overeat, consume harmful drugs, never exercise, eat poorly and drink themselves into a daily stupor?  Why is that my fault? Why am I responsible?  Why should my money be taken from me and given to them simply because they made the voluntary decision to live irresponsible lives while I made the opposite decision?  Socialists never answer these questions.  They simply presuppose that the "poor," whoever they are, are poor because of circumstances beyond their control.  They simply assume that the poor are noble beings in need of help.  Although there may be some isolated instances in which that is true, it is rarely the case.
To solve the problem that does not exist Samuelson calls upon his god, the federal government, to delay the age at which the "rich," whoever they are, are permitted to begin receiving Social Security payments.  In addition he also wants a means test prior to dispensing those benefits.  Those who have lived responsibly throughout their entire lives will be punished by having their benefits reduced and those who lived irresponsibly their entire lives will be rewarded with benefits far in excess of what they deserve.
Not only do the irresponsible members of the lower 20% of the income population make out like bandits by getting benefits far in excess of their contributions, the Social Security system actually subsidizes irresponsible behavior by rewarding it.  The breakdown of the family, the proliferation of divorce and single parenting, the endemic practice of fornication and living together among so many couples and the financial rewards associated with being a welfare mom all contribute to the poverty that is to be found in the bottom 20%.  The folks living there have no incentive to amend their lives and seek to provide for themselves.  They have become welfare dependent and are happy to be there.  Indeed, in most cases they see welfare and eventual Social Security as an entitlement that they deserve because "the man" never gave them a fair shake in life.  Victim complexes abound in the bottom 20%.  
Let's be clear about several things here.  First, Social Security is an immoral program to begin with.  The government has no moral right to be the enforcer of a mandated retirement program.  Every individual citizen in this envy-filled land should be free to provide, or not provide, for his own future.  There is no constitutional basis for Social Security and it must be admitted by everyone who seriously thinks about it that it was created as a vote garnering scheme by career politicians who wanted to stay in power.  It works, if one can say that, only because the majority of the people in this sad land are able to get more back than they pay into the system by stealing from the wealthier minority that make most of the payments into the system.  In a democracy the majority always wins and the top 20% of the income population inevitably loses.
Writing about what should be is a waste of time. Social Security is here and there is nothing that is going to stop it.   In that case it should be fair.  Payouts should be based upon payins and every participant in the system should have the same imputed rate of return on his "investment."  Furthermore, the system should be required to be solvent just like the government requires all private pension plans to be solvent. Of course those are pipe dreams that will never come to fruition.  Social Security is insolvent and only propped up by infusions of taxpayer dollars.  We all know that Social Security pays out far more than it takes in.  It is a Ponzi scheme in which current benefits are being paid for with current receipts.  If any private pension were operated like Social Security the government would shut it down and imprison the Trustees.  The difference is that Social Security is subsidized by the taxpayers and the taxpayers consist exclusively of the top 49% of the income population.  Hence we see that an even more egregious injustice takes place when Samuelson's precious system makes monthly payments to the hoards of irresponsible and immoral louses who make up the bottom 20% of the income population.  Not only are they stealing Social Security contributions, they are stealing income taxes as well.  Not to worry however.  This is a proper state of affairs in a socialist system.  All is well with the world when the productive members are being robbed and the unproductive members are being rewarded. That is called a democracy and it is precisely what the majority desires.

Thursday, October 1, 2015

Throw Cyclists In Jail For Running Stop Signs

Last week I posted to this blog about Colorado Governor Hickenlooper's plan to spend $100 million that he does not have on the construction of new bicycle paths throughout the Denver metro area in his vainglorious goal to make Denver the "most bike friendly place in the world."  The response to the Gov's proposal by the folks in the metro area was entirely predictable.  The first wave of rants declared that money should be spent on roads before it is spent on bicycle paths.  That was followed up with the cyclists making the preposterous claim that more bike paths would make road maintenance less expensive since so many people would be riding their bikes to work.  That was countered by automobile enthusiasts with the argument that if bicyclists want bike paths they should be required to pay for them with a tax on bicycles.  That was rebuffed by the cyclists with the argument that they already pay taxes on their driver's licenses and they should not be required to pay an additional tax for a bicycle path any more than a pedestrian should be required to pay a sidewalk tax.  Finally that was countered with the argument that is always designed to shut the mouths of the cyclists.  Do you know what that argument is?  I will tell you here today.
Once the usual course of arguments has run its course the final argument that is always presented to close out the discussion and pronounce the car drivers the winners is this:  cyclists do not obey the rules of the road and therefore have no right to even be discussing these things until they do.  There is a great deal of truth to that argument, or at least part of it.  By and large it is true that cyclists do not obey the rules of the road.  I am a cyclist and I will confess that I ignore the rules of the road all the time.  I run through stop signs without coming to a full stop.  I run red lights if no car is coming the opposite way.  I will briefly go down a one way street the wrong way.  I will occasionally speed through a school zone, especially if it is a steep downhill.  I will use the sidewalks at times.  I am guilty as charged.
Despite the fact that I am guilty of breaking the rules of the road on a regular basis, I do not believe that means I have no right to present an argument in favor of bike paths.  (If you read my earlier post you know I am not in favor of taxpayer financed bike paths.)  I have posted to this blog previously explaining why I will occasionally break the law while riding my bike.  Almost without exception I do so to avoid confrontations with people driving cars.  In an earlier post I told the story of how on one ride I was raged by two different automobile drivers.  The first driver cursed me out because I went through a stop sign without coming to a complete stop.  I did that so he would not have to wait on me.  It takes time to unclip and clip into a bicycle pedal while coming to a full stop.   When there is no traffic in the area I prefer to not cause unnecessary delays for the people driving cars.  After being cursed out and threatened by the first driver I made sure to come to a complete stop at the next stop sign I encountered.  There was a twenty-something male in a large truck behind me.  Quite predictably he rolled down his window and called me a series of choice names.  Why?  Because I delayed his progress by unnecessarily coming to a complete stop at a stop sign.
But telling you tales about my woes as a cyclist is not the point of today's blog post.  I am concerned about the argument which says that if I break the rules of the road I am logically and morally disqualified from entering into discussions with drivers of automobiles about the relative ratio of bike paths to roadways in the metro area.  That is simply not true.  Or, if you wish to believe that it is true, you need to apply the argument to yourself, you who are logically inconsistent drivers of cars.
I was on the roads of the Denver metro area for about two hours yesterday.  Before I had even driven my first mile and while still within the confines of the Yuppie neighborhood in which I live I witnessed a Yuppie woman in a Lexus SUV go through a stop sign without even slowing down.  She then stopped in the crosswalk at the red light at which I caught up to her.  She was far enough into the crosswalk that I could not see approaching traffic from my left, thus prohibiting me from making a right turn after coming to a compete stop.
As I continued on my way I stopped for several red lights.  At each light a multitude of cars making right turns on red did so without coming to a complete stop.  At several of the red lights I had cars pass me in order to get through the light when it turned red.  In those cases they were guilty of running red lights.  I entered a school zone and dropped to the posted 30 mph.  I was passed by dozens of cars while I obeyed the law through the school zone.  I was on the highway for quite a few miles and I was passed by hundreds of cars all of which had to be going at least 10 mph above the speed limit.  I passed almost no cars.  I had drivers pass me aggressively and then pull in briskly in front of me, dramatically displaying their opinion that I had no right to be on the road because I was making the choice to obey the rules.  One Yuppie driver in a Range (Rage) Rover almost ran into me from behind as he aggressively tail-gated me in my own community.  At the first chance he screamed around me and pulled back closely in front of me.  I believe he gave me a Yuppie salute as he did so.  At practically every intersection I came to I looked around and the majority of the drivers of the cars were looking at their phones and texting, all violations of the rules.  I was routinely delayed when a light would turn green because so many drivers were looking down and texting.  As I witnessed a never ending stream of violations of the rules of the road I could not help but think what each of the violators might think about cyclists.  I bet most of them are enraged when cyclists go through a stop sign.  I bet several of them have written letters to the editor of the newspaper expressing their opinion that cyclists should be thrown in jail for violating the rules of the road.  
I have a word for all you drivers of automobiles who accuse cyclists of being evil because we violate the rules of the road.  Hypocrites!  All of you.  First put your own house in order and then you can come talk to me. 

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

King Obama Rattles His Sabre

Last Monday King Obama delivered a pathetic speech to the General Assembly of the United Nations.  According to this report in the Washington Times, "While casting his nation as the keeper of global order and saying the age of dictatorships is over, President Obama on Monday stressed that the U.S. is ready and willing to work with countries such as Iran, Russia and China and harbors no irreversible ill will toward its old adversaries."  Then, in the ultimate expression of a despot about to lose power, King Obama said, "I lead the strongest military the world has ever known. I will never hesitate to protect my country and our allies unilaterally and by force when necessary."  A more pathetic statement could not have been made.
The King of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika made his statement because he had just been shown up on the world stage by a rising monarch by the name of King Putin, of Russia.  A little background might be in order here.  King Obama hates another King who happens to live in the Middle East.  His name is King Assad and he is the potentate in Syria.  The primary reason King Obama despises King Assad is the fact that Assad refuses to bow down and kiss the ring of King Obama.  Indeed, Assad had the audacity to ignore King Obama entirely and speak with King Putin without Obama's permission.  That has enraged Obama and forced him to start rattling his sabre.
There is another issue at play here.  ISIS now controls significant parts of both Iraq and Syria.  The SDA has responded to ISIS by spending $1 billion dropping bombs on Iraq and Syria.  The net impact of that bombing has been zero.  ISIS continues to expand in the region but King Obama's personal animosity towards King Assad has driven him to ignore the Syrian King's offer to team up against ISIS and instead he is attempting to work with a group he calls "moderates."  That has also been a miserable failure as no such group of people has been found.  Or, more accurately, I believe the SDA military advisers were able to round up about five guys willing to take up the fight against ISIS.  Rather than join forces with Assad to fight ISIS, Obama has insisted that any fighting against ISIS in Syria also be accompanied by the ouster of King Assad.  That absurd position established a stalemate that opened the door for King Putin.
King Putin realizes, as does everyone else in the world except King Obama, that ISIS will not be defeated in Syria if King Assad is not enlisted in the effort.  So King Putin extended the olive branch to King Assad and they forged an agreement to fight ISIS together.  Neither of them consulted with King Obama, the leader of the greatest imperial power in the history of the universe, and that made King Obama very angry.  That set the stage for King Obama's address at the UN.
It is always a fascinating thing to watch the fall of an empire.  The SDA empire is teetering on the brink of collapse and our King's latest speech proves my point.  He began by asserting, despite obvious evidence to the contrary, that the SDA is the world's peacekeeper.  Ask most of the other Kings around the world and they will tell you that the SDA is the greatest destabilizer of peace around the world but that did not keep King Obama from making the assertion.  Fully aware of the fact that other Kings around the world fear him less than they did in the good old days when SDA forces were running roughshod throughout Iraq and Afghanistan (which is also being taken back by the Taliban by the way), Obama reached into his bag of rhetorical tricks and came up with a whopper.  I guess he decided it was time to attempt to bluster his way back to power.  For absolutely no reason other than a vain attempt to feel good about himself, King Obama announced to the world that he leads "the strongest military the world has ever known."  Why that should be a point of pride was not explained.
Let's be clear on several points.  The SDA has no business being in the Middle East in the first place, unless it would be to try and fix the problem it started.  All of the problems currently associated with the reign of terror by ISIS are the direct result of what the SDA military has done in the Middle East in recent years.  Had King George II not waged his personal war of retribution and vengeance against King Hussein none of this would have ever come to pass.  But that is ancient history and cannot be taken back.  We must live in a world where SDA imperialistic designs have created pockets of war among the native tribes.
Next, King Putin is on the right track here.  King Obama's pride is too great to allow him to acknowledge the truth but if ISIS is to be defeated and the genocide that is taking place in the Middle East is to be stopped the last thing that needs to be done is to have SDA special forces murder another Middle Eastern King.  Assad needs to remain in power.  Taking him out will just make the situation worse and everyone in the world can see that but our King.  Such is the nature of blind ambition and personal vendettas.
As the leader of the greatest military power in the history of the world King Obama, even in his present impotent condition, could destroy ISIS in a matter of months if he wanted to.  The fact that he is not doing so clearly indicates that he does not want to do so.  The question is not who has the biggest and baddest army.  The question is why do Assad and Putin want to destroy ISIS and King Obama does not?  I will let others answer that question.

Update:  October 3, 2015

Since posting the information above the Russians have initiated bombing raids in Syria, designed to destroy ISIS and keep King Assad in power.   The response of King Obama to the Russian intervention is telling.  According to the Washington Post, "President Barack Obama has decided not to confront Russia directly over its new air offensive in Syria, believing that President Vladimir Putin will soon find himself in a Syrian quagmire..."  Our King's comments got me to thinking.  How is it that when Russia engaged Afghanistan so many years ago it was a disaster for the Russian military but when the military forces of the  SDA did exactly the same thing it was "mission accomplished" as the SDA military successfully exported democracy to another third world country?  And how is it that when the military forces of the SDA destroyed Iraq it was "mission accomplished" as another third world dictatorship was given the blessings of democracy but somehow when Russia bombs rebel forces in Syria it is sure to end in Russia's demise?  Any objective analysis of the situation would conclude that both Russia and the SDA failed miserably in Afghanistan.  We must also conclude that the SDA failed miserably in Iraq and is presently failing miserably in Syria.  I suspect that Russia might very well fail miserably in Syria as well.  Why King Obama is able to see the futility of foreign intervention when Russia does it but is utterly incapable of seeing that exact same futility when he orders it only testifies to the blindness induced by the presupposition of Amerikan Exceptionalism.  No matter what the career politicians who rule over us do it is always a success while, conversely, no matter what those who do not worship the SDA do it is always a failure.  Such blindness is not a good quality for the man who sits at the helm of the most powerful military in the history of the universe. 

Monday, September 28, 2015

Freaked Out About Fracking

In case you are one of the few people who does not know what fracking is, it is a process whereby horizontal wells are drilled into oil and gas deposits that previously could not be extracted by conventional means.  A fracking compound, that is mostly water and sand, is pumped into the well hole causing a build up of pressure deep beneath the surface of the earth, eventually fracturing the rock in which the oil or gas is trapped.  Once freed from the rock the substance being drilled for is extracted just like any other well.
Fracking is responsible for the fact that the Socialist Democracy of Amerika is finally energy independent.  Every single King of the SDA since Eisenhower has stated "energy independence" as an important goal for their administrations and hoards of government planners and other elitists would cook up taxpayer financed plans to make the SDA independent of OPEC.  As is to be expected, all government plans failed miserably.  On the other hand, profit seeking businessmen have been relentlessly developing new technologies, at their own expense, designed to extract oil and gas from the ground to sell to the consuming public.  We have low gasoline prices and record low prices on natural gas today because of their efforts.
Ironically the career politicians who rule over us today no longer talk about being energy independent.  Now that we actually are energy independent they want to reverse gears and make us dependent upon foreign oil once again.  The primary reasons for this about-face are the facts that government planners hate profit seeking businessmen and anything they accomplish is seen as a personal offense and oil drilling businessmen have accomplished what the government could not and government rulers are not about to admit that truth.  Another reason energy independence is now being described as a social negative is the simple fact that today's career politician panders to the greenies and the greenies hate fracking.
Why do greenies hate fracking?  That is a simple question to answer.  Greenies hate fracking because the government they worship is not involved in the process and those profit-seeking businessmen who engage in fracking make a lot of money.  As dedicated socialists who bow down before the throne of government and government rules and regulations no self respecting greenie would ever allow himself to be pleased with the fact that fracking has brought us a stated goal that career politicians have been trying to accomplish for 60 years.  Now that profit-seeking businessmen have accomplished that goal the greenies will do everything they can to discredit and stop them.  That is the nature of socialism.
Some of the nicest and most generous people I know are frackers.  I clean the offices for several oil companies and I am always impressed by these businessmen.  They pay higher wages to their employees than any other business I am aware of.  They provide more benefits than any other business I am aware of.  They pay huge bonuses to their employees and take pride in contributing to their employee's 401k plans.  I have benefited from the personal generosity of one oilman many times as he has given me and my wife opportunities to do things we never could afford to do on our own.  Socialists should love frackers.  Frackers do for their employees everything socialists demand for them to do but they still end up being hated in the end because frackers make a profit.
Since the majority of the citizens of the SDA are also committed socialists it is not surprising that we never hear any news reports about the benefits of fracking; things like high levels of employment with high wages or energy independence from OPEC are never the subjects of news reports.    On the contrary, all we ever hear about from all media sources is the alleged dangers associated with fracking and how fracking is likely to destroy the entire world if government does not prohibit it.
Jennifer Steuck of Denver hates fracking.   According to a letter she wrote to the Denver Post she wants to "ban fracking altogether."  Actually she wants some unknown person called "the people" to ban fracking altogether.  She isn't willing to do the work herself.  Let me tell you about what she believes.  She begins by informing me that, "Rather than squabble about who has the right to regulate fracking, shouldn't we be considering the rights of the people?"  Jennifer simply assumes that government should be involved in "regulating" fracking, whatever that means.  She makes no argument for why the government can regulate companies that frack better than the free market can.  Given the economy killing nature of government regulations it would certainly make the most sense to allow the free market to regulate fracking but the state worshiping Jennifer will not even consider that possibility.  Jennifer also believes that this person called "the people" has some sort of right to tell an oil company what it can and can't do.  She does not explain where that right comes from and she makes no effort to inform me where this clandestine person known as "the people" lives.  Maybe "the people" does not even have oil underneath his land.  Why should he be allowed to regulate the free market behaviors and voluntary contractual agreements between oil companies and people who do have oil under their land?  She simply assumes that "the people" have this power.
Jennifer then informs me that, "according to the Colorado Constitution, the people have the right to protect their property and live safe, happy lives."  I have not read the Colorado Constitution but if the people who wrote it are really dumb enough to declare that each citizen of Colorado has the right to a "happy life," whatever that is, they are nuts.  How is the government going to provide that?  Only a person who believes that government is god can make a statement like that.  I conclude that Jennifer believes government is god.
Jennifer now comes to the main point of her argument when she declares, "Since the people have this right, it follows that a community should be able to determine whether or not certain practices impinge on their rights as citizens.  It is within the rights of the people to place a moratorium on fracking and also to ban fracking altogether."  Jennifer has now totally confused me.  She defines "the people" as "a community" which she then redefines as "citizens."  Which is it?  I understand the concept of citizens.  I am a citizen.  But I have no clue who the people and the community are.  I, as a citizen, have a mind and a will.  I want oil companies to be free to engage in voluntary transactions with all citizens who have oil under their land.  I have no interest in controlling the behavior of my neighbor, the community or the people, whoever they are.
Not so for Jennifer.  Of course I jest here.  Jennifer believes in democracy.  She believes that some arbitrary geo-political boundary that contains some individual citizens is a community that has the right to vote about things.  As is always the case with a democracy, the majority wins and the minority loses.  And, as is always the case within a democracy, when voting takes place there will be winners and losers.  Jennifer wants the citizens in the various arbitrary geo-political boundaries scattered throughout Colorado to vote to forbid voluntary transactions between individual citizens and oil companies, thus making oil companies and citizens with oil under their land losers.  Jennifer and her ilk will be the winners because she will have successfully prevented a free market transaction.  So all we have learned from Jennifer's letter is that she is a malicious busy-body who desperately desires to control the behavior of others as well as, if possible, destroy the right of her neighbor to engage in voluntary transactions she personally disapproves of.  I conclude that the only thing we really can determine from her letter is that Jennifer is freaked out about fracking.

The Great Silent Minority

People in the know used to speak about a concept called the "silent majority."  According to Wikipedia, the concept of a silent majority was derived as follows, " The silent majority is an unspecified large majority of people in a country or group who do not express their opinions publicly.The term was popularized by U.S. President Richard Nixon in a November 3, 1969, speech in which he said, 'And so tonight—to you, the great silent majority of my fellow Americans—I ask for your support.' In this usage it referred to those Americans who did not join in the large demonstrations against the Vietnam War at the time, who did not join in the counterculture, and who did not participate in public discourse. Nixon along with many others saw this group of Middle Americans as being overshadowed in the media by the more vocal minority."
Whether the concept of a silent majority was ever historically accurate is a debatable point.  Today I would like to make a case for another silent caste in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.  I believe we have a historical situation today in which we have a silent minority.  Allow me to explain why.
The first reason we have a silent minority is the rather obvious point that we live in a pure democracy.  Under the terms of a democracy the majority always wins.  Whatever the majority wants, it gets.  Tremendous amounts of time and money are spent attempting to garner a political majority because once that majority is achieved it can be used to plunder the minority class.  The amount of money that can be transferred by means of laws created by career politicians to the politically all-powerful majority from the politically unprotected pockets of the minority is much greater than the large amounts spent to create a political majority in the first place.  That explains why political rhetoric in this envy-filled country is so heated these days.  Everyone wants to be a part of the majority in order to exploit the minority in any way possible.
Being in the majority is of very little value if there is no money associated with it.  A majority of the people in the SDA might be fans of the Colorado Rockies but there is no status or significance associated with that position.  Indeed, I believe it can be argued that being a Colorado Rockies fan is directly associated with poverty, clinical depression and an increased rate for being "at risk" for a long list of government approved mental illnesses.  It is being in the political majority that matters in this sad land.  How do I know this?  Consider one simple point.
The minority of the people in this country who make the most amount of money pay what is essentially the entire federal tax bill.  Go here for the full story.  The top 49% of the income population pays 97% of all federal expenses.  That means the majority of the population, 51%, receives a free ride on the minority.  All federal expenses are covered by a politically unprotected minority that can do nothing to stop the theft of its income.  51% of the folks living in this land want the top 49% of the income population to pay all the federal bills and because we live in a democracy that is the way it ends up being.
I have made this point many times in the past. What I have not written as I consider this immoral truth about this disgusting country is why this information is not generally known or publicized.  It is as if some powerful judge has issued a gag order on the topic of who actually pays the bills in this land and nobody is permitted to discuss it.  Where are the articles in the newspaper?  Where are the nightly news reports?  Where is 60 Minutes?  Where is the Wall Street Journal?  Why does it seem as if nobody cares?  The answer to that question is a simple one.  We live in a country with a silent minority that dutifully pays all of the federal tax bills.
According to a recent Gallup poll, found here, "Almost half of Americans, 49%, say the federal government poses 'an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens,' similar to what was found in previous surveys conducted over the last five years."  An article interpreting the poll went on to state, "Overall, Americans who agree that the government is an immediate threat tend to respond with very general complaints echoing the theme that the federal government is too big and too powerful, and that it has too many laws. They also cite nonspecific allegations that the government violates freedoms and civil liberties, and that there is too much government in people's private lives."
Well there you have it.  49%, a minority, of the citizens of the SDA believe the government is an immediate threat to their lives, freedom and property.  So what do we get more of every day?  You guessed it....we get more government.  And why do we get more government?  Because 51% of the state-worshiping citizens of this country want more government and the majority always wins.  What do you think?  Might there be a correlation between the two 49% groups described above?  Is it possible that the members of the 49% who are having significant amounts of money stolen from them by the government and given to others who agree to vote for the career politicians performing the thievery are the same 49% who believe that government is an immediate threat to their lives, freedom and property?
What surprises me is how hard it was to find out about the Gallup poll.  Did you know about it?  It was taken just two weeks ago.   I read my Denver Post from cover to cover each day and did not see an article about the poll.  I watch Fox News and MSNBC daily and I saw no reports on either station about the poll.  I listen to people talking all around me everyday and I have not heard a single conversation about the poll.  It is as if some powerful judge has issued a gag order against talking about how 49% of the citizens of this theft-prone land believe the government is their property stealing enemy.
Over the past four presidential election cycles somewhere between 43-49 percent of the potential voters in this highly politicized land made the rational decision to not vote.  There is that 49% number again.  It just seems to keep coming up.  I wonder why?  Voter turnout is even lower in midterm elections where non-participation rates range from 49 to 63 percent of potential voters.  In those elections many of  the citizens of this immoral land make the wise decision to stay home and watch their grass grow rather than go to the polls.
Did you know that barely a majority of eligible voters actually vote in presidential elections?  Did you know that in midterm elections there is almost never a majority of eligible voters going to the polls?  Unless you made a concerted effort to find those statistics you probably had no clue about the percentage of people who actually participate in the political system by voting.  If you just read the papers, watch the news and scour the internet you would probably conclude that every citizen in this God-hating country is politically active, although that opinion would be far from the truth.  I wonder why?  It almost seems as if some powerful judge has issued a gag order about the topic of how many of us actually choose to not participate in the political process.
I could go on but I don't want to wear out the four people who read this blog regularly.  I believe I have made my point.  I believe that the necessary consequence of living in a democracy is the fact that a silent minority of productive citizens are forced to pay the bills for everyone else.  Furthermore I believe those citizens distrust the government and the career politicians and bureaucrats that populate it.  Additionally I believe that the minority of folks being continually robbed and abused make no effort to protect themselves by going to the polls because they are fully aware that we live in a democracy and in a democracy the minority always loses.
Lastly, I believe that the great silent minority of which I speak is far too busy engaging in productive, profit-seeking business activities to waste time with the envy-filled political process.  The silent minority seeks to serve others, not to plunder them.  The silent minority minds its own business, not the business of others. You should seek to be a member of the silent minority.  You will be plundered, you will be abused and you will be blamed for everything that is wrong with this immoral country but you will be on the right side and that is all that really matters.  If you are in a government job, get out.  If you are seeking political office, run away.  If you believe you know what is best for others, mind your own business. 
Welcome to the great silent minority.  We are plundered.  We are verbally abused.  But most of all we are forbidden to tell our story.  The media powers, in cahoots with governmental and political powers, have rigged the system in such a way that the amazing tale of the productivity and imposed slavery of the silent minority will never be told.  And you know what?  That is OK with us.  We are not willing to sell our souls to gain the power of the majority.  We know all too well that majority power corrupts absolutely.