March 08, 2010
Robbing the Old to Pay the Rich
"People
who treat other people as less than human must not be
surprised when the bread they have cast on the waters comes
floating back to them, poisoned." ~ James Baldwin,
1924-1987, American Author
The senate boldly and
blatantly refused to give 57 million elderly individuals
$250 more. The story below highlights this point.
A measure to give some
57 million elderly people, veterans and persons with
disabilities a $250 check was rejected by the Senate on
Wednesday, a setback for the powerful seniors' lobby.
Social Security
payments for the elderly and disabled will stay flat this
year for the first time since 1975 because they are tied to
consumer prices, which decreased amid the worst economic
recession in 70 years.
That follows a year in
which payments rose by 5.8 percent, largely due to a spike
in gasoline prices. "It is wrong to turn our backs on
seniors in this moment of economic difficulty," said
Independent Senator Bernie Sanders, who sponsored the
amendment.
But Republican Senator
Judd Gregg pointed out that the bill would defeat the
purpose of indexing Social Security payments to inflation.
"The law says it shouldn't be given," Gregg said. At
least 10 Democrats agreed with Gregg and joined 40
Republicans to defeat the proposal.
Full Story
Under normal
circumstances, I would have just ignored this story and
moved along, but when I read the statement that is boldfaced
above I felt I had to say something. The dimwits in
Washington would not know what inflation was if it hit them
right in the face and then drove over them.
The real and only
definition of inflation is an increase the supply of money.
It is not defined as in an increase in price as so many
economists love to falsely proclaim. The money supply has
gone ballistic, our national debt has doubled in the last 10
years, and we continue to create money and a mind boggling
rate. Therefore, inflation has not disappeared, its pace has
continued to increase, though the effects of inflation have
not always manifested themselves immediately (price
increases); based on this simple fact these individuals
should not be getting $250, they should be getting between
$600-1000. The masses are being blindly robbed via this
silent Killer tax, otherwise known as inflation.
If Senator Judd and
everyone who voted against this bill feel that we have no
inflation, why are they are not lowering their salaries to
compensate for this so called low inflationary environment?
It will be a cold day in hell when anyone in congress
voluntarily takes a pay cut. Senator Bayh was right, every
incumbent needs to be kicked out and replaced with new
blood; while not the perfect solution, it will send a
message to these guys that it's time to do something.
When you bite the hand that feeds you, you are doomed to
lick the boot that kicks you.
To add insult to injury
after increasing the money supply, the Feds then lend
billions of dollars to bank all of which played a huge part
in making a bad situation even worse. The Feds inflate the
money supply and then freely give this money out to
individuals who really don't need it but those who really
need it have a hard time even getting $250 bucks.
We can see the effects of
inflation everywhere; Higher gas prices, higher heating
prices, higher rents, cost of basic staples increasing,
etc., etc
Gold one of the best
measures of inflation is up roughly 400% from its lows. If
we were in a low inflationary environment the price of Gold
would not have risen so much. Oil is up over 800% from its
lows and not too long ago was up almost 1400% from its lows.
The average person's salary has not increased enough to take
inflation into consideration. All one has to do is look at
the price of homes, even after pretty strong pull back, the
average Joe cannot afford to buy a decent home in many parts
of the country on his salary. In the old days (1950's) if
one saved enough one was assured of being able to purchase a
decent home.
We spend money defending
other nations and trying to promote peace and justice in the
world. Why can't we spend some of this money on individuals
that really need it? Where is the justice there?
What will congress have to
say when Gold eventually trades past the 2000 mark and then
hits the $3000 mark? They are now projecting that our
national debt will hit 20 trillion in the next 10 years; at
the rate we are spending, we would hit this mark well before
the decade is over.
The best hedge against an
inflationary environment is to be in hard assets. That means
anything that cannot be mass produced or just created;
basically almost anything to do with the commodity's sector,
for example Gold and Silver bullion. If many of the
individuals today who are on fixed incomes had put aside a
bit of extra money and deployed this into Gold and Silver
bullion they would be in a far better off than they are
today and would not be completely at the mercy of the very
same individuals who created this mess in the first place.
The best way to protect
yourself from the evil effects of inflation is to live 1-2
standards below your means; the money saved should be put in
investments that will hold their value over time such as
Gold or silver. Over 100 years ago one gold Coin
purchased a very good handmade suit, 100 years later one
Gold coin can still purchase the best handmade suit and if
you go to Asia it will purchase even more. Can one say the
same for 1 dollar?
"Nothing
in the world is more haughty than a man of moderate capacity
when once raised to power." ~ Baron Wessenberg
|