Ending Social Security As We Know It

The RADICAL REPUBLICANS want to take us back to the early 1800s before there was Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Dsiability Insurance, Aid To Families With Dependent Children, Medicaid, Medicare, Food Stamps, Pension Plans, Child Labor Laws, and a 40 Hour Work Week. They want the worker to live and die in poverty, to live in misery, in plain, in illness until they meet death.

The Constitution says that “the Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes… to provide for the… general Welfare of the United States.” But I noticed that when you quoted this section on page 116, you left “general welfare” out and put an ellipsis in its place. Progressives would say that “general welfare” includes things like Social Security or Medicare—that it gives the government the flexibility to tackle more than just the basic responsibilities laid out explicitly in our founding document. What does “general welfare” mean to you? [PERRY:] I don’t think our founding fathers when they were putting the term “general welfare” in there were thinking about a federally operated program of pensions nor a federally operated program of health care. What they clearly said was that those were issues that the states need to address. Not the federal government. I stand very clear on that. From my perspective, the states could substantially better operate those programs if that’s what those states decided to do. So in your view those things fall outside of general welfare. But what falls inside of it? What did the Founders mean by “general welfare”? [PERRY:] I don’t know if I’m going to sit here and parse down to what the Founding Fathers thought general welfare meant. But you just said what you thought they didn’t mean by general welfare. So isn’t it fair to ask what they did mean? It’s in the Constitution. [Silence.]

The Social Security Act was past in 1935 and signed into law by then President Franklin D., Roosevelt to help a dispread nation sunk deep into the "GREAT DEPRESSION OF THE 1930s." Europe had long had a safety-net to help its citizens who were too old to work, the disabled, and families with dependent children.

Why is privatizing Social Security such a turkey? Because retirees shouldn't have to depend on the market's vagaries for survival money. More than half of married couples over 65 and 72% of singles get more than half their income from Social Security, according to the Social Security Administration. For 20% of 65-and-up couples and 41% of singles, Social Security is 90% or more of their income. That isn't projected to change.

Prizating Social Security will put many seniors and the disabled on the streets living in poverty homeless. Furthermore, the economy will tail spin downward into a deep depression. To destroy these will destroy democracy in the United Stated, and small businbess will disapear.

A look at the world's new corporate tax havens Lesley Stahl explains how U.S. corporations are cutting their tax bills by moving business overseas

(CBS News)  Our government is in knots over ways to lower the federal budget deficit. Well, what if we told you we found a pot of money - over $60 billion a year - that could be used to help out?
That bundle is tax money not coming in to the IRS from American corporations. One major way they avoid paying the tax man is by parking their profits overseas. They'll tell you they're forced to do that because the corporate 35 percent tax rate is high in relation to other countries, and indeed it seems the tax code actually encourages companies to move their businesses out of the country.
Tax havens: Do companies pay their fair share?
"60 Minutes" correspondent Lesley Stahl talks tax havens and the new ways American companies are stashing their profits abroad.
Companies searching out tax havens is nothing new: in the 80s and 90s there was an exodus to Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, where there are no taxes at all.
When President Obama threatened to clamp down on tax dodging, many companies decided to leave the Caribbean. But instead of coming back home, they went to safer havens like Switzerland.
Several of these companies came to a small, quaint medieval town in Switzerland call Zug.
Hans Marti, who heads Zug's economic development office, showed off the nearby snow-covered mountains. But Zug's main selling point isn't a view of the Alps: he told Stahl the taxes are somewhere between 15 and 16 percent.
"And in the United States it's 35 percent," Stahl pointed out.
"I know. It's half price," Marti said.
Marti told Stahl that Zug most probably has the lowest tax rates in Switzerland.
"So you're kind of a tax haven within a tax haven?" she remarked.
"Maybe, yes," he acknowledged.
The population of the town of Zug is 26,000; the number of companies in the area is 30,000 and growing at an average rate of 800 a year. But many are no more than mailboxes.
Texas Democratic Congressman Lloyd Doggett questions whether the recent moves of several companies are legit. "A good example is one of my Texas companies that's been in the news lately, Transocean," Rep. Doggett told Stahl.
Transocean owned the drilling rig involved in the giant BP oil spill. They moved to Zug two years ago.
Extra: Benefits of bringing back cash
Extra: How to shift profits
"I'm not sure they even moved that much. They have about 1,300 employees still in the Houston area. They have 12 or 13 in Switzerland," Doggett told Stahl.
"And yet they claim that they're headquartered over there," Stahl remarked.
"They claim they're Swiss. And they claim they're Swiss for tax purposes. And by doing that, by renouncing their American citizenship, they've saved about $2 billion in taxes," Doggett explained.
Stahl and "60 Minutes" decided to visit their operations in Zug.
A woman at the door told Stahl, "At the moment my boss is not here."
She said her boss wasn't there and we should call someone halfway around the world, in Houston.
"But this is the headquarters," Stahl remarked.
"I know," the woman said.
When asked if the CEO was there or is normally at the Zug office, the woman said "No."

Corporate owned government, and the corporate electric media.

Minnesota Voters Should Be Ashamed To Have Voted For Congresswoman Michelle Bachman

“It’s your state that fired the shot that was heard around the world, you are the state of Lexington and Concord, you started the battle for liberty right here in your backyard,” Bachmann said.
Bachmann’s geographic mix-up prompted derision among some New Hampshire Republicans.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51179.html#ixzz1H01F5yEI

Michelle Bachmann She's Unqualified To Be A Congress Member