Bad news from Mr. Sulu: Clarence Thomas is a “clown in blackface”

Loading

Allah:

Via the Free Beacon, I think it was Dan McLaughlin of Red State who tweeted after last week’s SSM decision was released, “Now the contest begins to see who’ll be the angriest winner.” His point was that, for a movement that’s been unstoppable culturally over the past 10 years, there’s a curiously strong impulse towards nastiness in some lefties’ reaction to each new victory. With this remark from George Takei, I think it’s safe to say the contest is now over.

Takei’s overreacting to a point Thomas made in response to Kennedy’s idea that state recognition of gay marriage is at base about recognizing the equal dignity of gay citizens. Your dignity doesn’t depend on what the state thinks of you, countered Thomas. Each life has inherent dignity that the state can’t destroy even with severe depredations. It can tell you that you’re property but God says you’re a human being, and that’s that. His point was a variation on Eleanor Roosevelt’s famous line that “no one can make you feel inferior without your consent,” which is simplistic in an extreme case of oppression like slavery or internment but valuable as a defense of the essential humanity of exploited people. All Thomas was saying was that dignity is a matter of natural rights, not positivism. Gays have dignity whether the state acknowledges their marriages or not. But because he came out the wrong way on gay marriage and because he is, after all, Clarence Thomas, America’s most famous black conservative and therefore the country’s supreme race traitor in the eyes of the left, Takei not only willfully misunderstands his intentions but slides easily into a nasty racial crack about Thomas’s black authenticity. He’ll pay no price for it, needless to say. If anything, this is high-five material for jerkoffs who’ve already moved past last week’s landmark ruling and are busily gaming out how to bust tax exemptions for Catholic soup kitchens or whatever.

Video here

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
61 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

He’s gay, that makes him untouchable. I live in Montgomery, Ala. If I said the same thing about Obama the Jackboots would already have me.

The fact is Clarence Thomas was born in poverty and worked his way up in life to become a justice on the US Supreme Court.
George Takei was a B movie actor who landed a small part on on a short-lived TV series.
It makes no sense whatsoever to take George’s word on anything substantive.
He even misunderstood Thomas’ opinion.
Takei took Thomas’ opinion to mean that he was denying the indignity of slavery.
He wasn’t.
He was denying that GOVERNMENT can either bestow OR remove dignity from anyone.

What Thomas noted was that while slave owners could demean and degrade their slaves, they could never wrest from them the dignity inherent in being a child of God.
Far from minimizing the evils of slavery, Thomas was highlighting the revolutionary truth that led to America’s founding: “that all men are created equal, [and] that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”

Takei could not understand this.

The Federalist has a good take on all this:
http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/02/george-takei-should-stop-gaysplaining-black-history-to-clarence-thomas/

Takei said:

My parents lost everything that they worked for, in the middle of their lives, in their 30s. His business, my father’s business, our home, our freedom and we’re supposed to call that dignified? Marched out of our homes at gun point. I mean, this man does not belong on the Supreme Court. He is an embarrassment. He is a disgrace to America.

Although it was a Democrat president that ordered the imprisonment of his parents, and the confiscation of their property, Takei is a hard core Democrat. A third-rate actor that hasn’t really done anything of note since his Star Trek days, he basically earns a living by appearing at Star Trek conventions and playing on a less than stellar career that ended years ago.

Takei is like a lot of entertainment has-beens that become media whores. He would stand in the middle of Times Square and cut his own ears off if he thought it would generate his name in headlines.

He is also the spokesman for the radical Human Rights Campaign that has a history of persecution against those who don’t agree with their radical tactics.

But don’t expect people like Tom to denounce the comments Takei made about a black Supreme Court justice. Clarence Thomas is fair game to people like Takei, and Tom, because he doesn’t buy into the victimization policies of Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan and Jesse Jackson.

@retire05: http://www.gaypatriot.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/11667353_10153359063317777_1784097586145793765_n.jpg

Clarence Thomas grew up in extreme poverty in the segregated south and rose to become an associate justice of the Supreme Court.

George Takei sat next to Walter Koenig pushing buttons and griping that he wasn’t as prominent as William Shatner.

George Takei has not only had to deal with a lifetime of persecution because of his sexual orientation; he was also a native-born American citizen who was forcibly placed into an internment camp by his government during the Second World War owing to his race. Of course a statement like the following would enrage him:

“The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.”

That’s got to be one of the most astonishingly clueless statements ever set down on paper by a member of the United States Supreme Court—particularly coming from an African American. A misguided or an overtly malign government sure as hell can strip human beings of their dignity, and God help any nation whose citizens forget that for even a moment.

I can’t imagine what Clarence Thomas was thinking when he wrote that tone deaf passage. Maybe he gets so involved in his consideration of the intricacies of the law that it all becomes an abstraction. That’s giving him the benefit of the doubt. It was noted by the New Yorker magazine in February, 2014 that it had at that point been 8 full years since Clarence Thomas last asked a question during a Supreme Court oral argument. Eight years of total silence during oral arguments is rather strange behavior for a Supreme Court Justice.

@retire05, #3:

Takei is like a lot of entertainment has-beens that become media whores.

His professional career includes more than just 51 episodes of a national television series that was subsequently syndicated and is still running, and 6 very popular spin-off feature films. Apparently you haven’t taken a look at Takei’s professional resume.

It probably annoys you enormously that a lot of people pay attention when he expresses his views on certain issues. It this particular case he has every right to do so, because what Thomas said directly relates to Takei’s own life.

RETO5 Do you see it as a positive or negative that Honest Abe freed the slaves?
I believe your commentary on Lincoln has been mostly negative to this point.

Nan Were you aware of Takei’s upbringing? Do you understand how he could take exception to C.T.’s opinion?

@Greg:

George Takei has not only had to deal with a lifetime of persecution because of his sexual orientation; he was also a native-born American citizen who was forcibly placed into an internment camp by his government during the Second World War owing to his race.

How do you know that Takei dealt with a lifetime of persecution? Are you personal friends with him? Remember, he is a product of Hollywood and Hollywood has, for decades, accepted sodomists in its midst. Also, he was 5 when his parent were imprisoned by a Democrat president.

Apparently you haven’t taken a look at Takei’s professional resume.

Yeah, I have. It pretty much ended with the last Star Trek movie in 1991. Unless you want to claim his appearance in such block busters like Oblivion, Ninja Cheerleaders and Scooby-Doo and the Sword of the Samurai Ghost.

I know that “personal” dignity is a foreign concept to you, Gullible Greggie. But deny it all you want, our POWs had one thing, personal dignity, a dignity that no enemy could take away from them. That personal dignity, Gullible Greggie, that is inside of you and not part of any government, is what you are too stupid to understand Justice Thomas was talking about. It was the same dignity that those that had fire hoses turned on them had. The same personal dignity that poor people during the Great Depression had. And that kind of dignity, the kind that Justice Thomas understands, cannot be given to you by any unconstitutional ruling of the SCOTUS. Either you have it (which I don’t think you do) or you don’t.

It probably annoys you enormously that a lot of people pay attention when he expresses his views on certain issues. It this particular case he has every right to do so, because what Thomas said directly relates to Takei’s own life.

Takei has a right to say any dumb, racist thing he wants. Calling Justice Thomas “a clown in black face” was racist almost to the extreme.

@rich wheeler:

RETO5 Do you see it as a positive or negative that Honest Abe freed the slaves?
I believe your commentary on Lincoln has been mostly negative to this point.

A positive. But I don’t fool myself into believing that Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation for any other reason that political. Frankly, he wanted the slaves to be relocated out of the United States and he also felt that blacks were inferior to whites.

As I said before, Lincoln was a man of conflicting values and stances. He lied to the leaders of South Carolina, claimed he did not want to start a war, could have tried to negotiate with the states that left the Union but he didn’t. Instead, he invaded Virginia.

@rich wheeler:

Rich, now let me ask you a guestion:

Do you think with all the ruckus over Jefferson and Washington due to their owning slaves, that the statues and memorials to Andrew Jackson and Ulysses S. Grant should also be removed due to their treatment of Native Americans as well as both being slave owners? Do you think we should take Andrew Jackson’s picture off the $20 bill? Should the American flag be removed from all Native American reservations?

@retire05, #8:

Yeah, I have. It pretty much ended with the last Star Trek movie in 1991. Unless you want to claim his appearance in such block busters like Oblivion, Ninja Cheerleaders and Scooby-Doo and the Sword of the Samurai Ghost.

I suppose actors consider parts in professional productions to be real work, whether they meet with your own elevated artistic standards or not. After a lifetime pursuing his chosen profession, Takei has an estimated net worth of around $12 million. At 78, he still works on occasion. Takei’s Take, a recent web distributed technology series, was a paid gig. It was funded by AARP. I get the impression that he enjoys working. He must enjoy it, since he no longer has to. It’s also my impression that he has a positive outlook and tries to promote that outlook in others.

So what’s your problem with all of this? I think you don’t like him simply because he’s successful, and doesn’t happen to share your views or your attitudes.

@retire05: Hard to find anything worse than the initial treatment of Native Americans by our government—I’m thinking the casinos are an attempt at “reparations” Indians in So Cal associated with the casinos are parlaying the long knives gambling losses into lovely homes and fancy autos–good for them.
I’ve never been much for memorial statues—exception being The Marine Corps Monument. I don’t idolize The Founding Fathers—imperfect men as all men are. You can leave their monuments or take em down
Their greatness will remain in the written word never tarnished by time or the elements.

@Greg:

I think you don’t like him simply because he’s successful

,

I don’t like him because he’s a B grade actor and I’m not a Trekkie. Ad goody, goody for him that he is worth $12 mil. You’d think that someone with that much money could buy a brain.

and doesn’t happen to share your views or your attitudes

Nope, I don’t share his racist views about Justice Thomas, you’re right about that.

@rich wheeler:

Hard to find anything worse than the initial treatment of Native Americans by our government

The “initial” treatment, Rich? Really? And do you seriously believe that those few Native Americans that are in a location that serves the casino business are the current norm? Guess you haven’t been to Red Bud in the last 50 years.

And you didn’t answer the other question (I suppose on purpose): should the American flag be removed from Native American reservations?

@rich wheeler: Rich, I am disappointed in you. I know you haven’t read my article or you would have acknowledged my small tribute to the Green Machine. The ceremonial Mameluke Sword’s origin is explained and the term Leatherneck is explained, as well as those Jeffersonian Marines landing on the Shores of Tripoli. I know you haven’t read it or you would have appreciated the significance of the tribute on the eve of this sacred holiday. If you are intimidated, read it in 2,000 word segments; no one will know the difference, but you owe it to the rest of us to read this small tribute and write something, dang it.

@Skook: WILL DO

I am not so surprised to learn that Takei is a bigot. It seems that Democrats never really set aside their penchant for hatred and bigotry, they simply shifted their aim to change whom they will target. As with their recent attempts to incite Blacks against police, and now with the Southern US states, leftists are whipping up racial tensions, (just as the cowardly punk Charleston shooter intended). Blacks should realize that the political left is manipulating them into being front line fodder. Black lives indeed do not seem to matter to the rabble rousing far-left, so long as they can be used as political pawns. Wake-up Black Americans, you are being played.

@retire05: i would have no problem with the removal of the flag–got no problem with it remaining.

@Nanny G:

The fact is Clarence Thomas was born in poverty and worked his way up in life to become a justice on the US Supreme Court.

While I’m a fan of Clarence Thomas, I’m not sure that he could be said to be born into poverty. I was born and raised in the same area that Thomas was but about 8 years earlier and from all I know about Southern Georgia back then, it sounds as if we were both born under ‘average conditions for southern Georgia at the time. Reading his history, I’m not sure how/why he was only black in his high school because most schools got integrated in Georgia in the mid 60’s. I certainly admire what he has achieved even tho no one gave me ‘affirmative action’ when I was a child, which in his case was a free ride to an Ivy league school. I did get a full scholarship to an excellent university, but it was on merit and not race. I am not envious of Clarence Thomas, I wouldn’t change lives with him if given the opportunity.

@Greg:

George Takei has not only had to deal with a lifetime of persecution because of his sexual orientation; he was also a native-born American citizen who was forcibly placed into an internment camp by his Dimocrat led government during the Second World War

Modified quote slightly to make it factual. To show that it was Dimocrats that put him in an internment camp. Make sure they get credit where credit was due.

@rich wheeler: Skooks One of my proudest moments was when I secured my Marmeluke Sword at Basic School in 1967.
Presented to 1st LT Presley O’Bannon in 1805 as a gesture of respect and praise it was adopted in 1825 by Commandant Archibold Henderson as the weapon to be worn ceremonially by Marine Corps Officers
Leatherneck collar was, I believe, originally for posture but also to protect against the infidels swords when boarding vessels. Today a cloth collar is worn with dress blues–it get’s your attention.

Marine you are an incredible writer and a great man–I SALUTE YOU Semper Fi
Capt. R. J. Wheeler USMCR

@Greg:

His professional career includes more than just 51 episodes of a national television series that was subsequently syndicated and is still running, and 6 very popular spin-off feature films.

I’ve never seen even one of his performances. Apparently I haven’t missed a thing. I don’t watch that phony baloney stuff.

@rich wheeler:

i would have no problem with the removal of the flag–got no problem with it remaining.

So………..when it comes to the flag that represents persecution, theft of land and property, forced sterilization, death and even genocide to the Native Americans you are indifferent yet when it comes to the flag of the Army of Northern Virginia, you think it should be removed from public owned properties.

Got it.

@Ditto, #17:

I think what you’ve just said is what many on the right wish people would think. The facts are somewhat different: Takei is anything but a bigot, as anyone who is the least bit familiar with him knows. Most democrats aren’t bigots either; bigots would be one category of persons that they generally tend not to have much patience with. Many black Americans are justifiably angry because of their treatment by the police, a certain element of which apparently aren’t psychologically fit to be wearing police uniforms and are a discredit to their entire profession.

The reason the GOP has a problem with blacks, and increasingly with Hispanics, is because they don’t seem to get any of this, or if they do won’t say so out of fear of alienating certain elements of their constituencies. They’re pretty much pushing minority groups into the democratic camp, and then expressing their outrage when democrats welcome them. What you’re missing is that democrats are these people, and those who have no problem welcoming them in.

I’ll give republicans credit for diversifying the groups they’re actively driving away, at least; apparently there’s a new move afoot to alienate even Star Trek fans.

@Greg:

Takei is anything but a bigot, as anyone who is the least bit familiar with him knows.

What Takei said IS most certainly bigoted. Let someone call Al Sharpton “a clown in black face” and watch the outrage on the left begin.

Most democrats aren’t bigots either; bigots would be one category of persons that they generally tend not to have much patience with.

Then where is the outrage expressed by the left when racist slurs are lobbed against Justice Thomas, Allen West. Doreen Borelli, Niger Ennis, Tim Scott or any other black conservative? Provide some proof that the left gets equally outraged about bigotry against them.

Many black Americans are justifiably angry because of their treatment by the police, a certain element of which apparently aren’t psychologically fit to be wearing police uniforms and are a discredit to their entire profession.

But when the Baltimore Police said “Fine. You think we are all bigots. OK, you’re on your own and we will respond to only those calls when we have two or more offices available.” and what happened? The blacks started whining about lack of police presence.

They’re pretty much pushing minority groups into the democratic camp, and then expressing their outrage when democrats welcome them.

You know, Gullible Greggie, I thought it impossible that you could get to be a bigger idiot than you already have been. We know that history is not your forte, so I’m sure that you are unaware that it was under FDR that blacks started becoming Democrats. No, not because he loved them so (he was a racist) but because he turned the works programs over to ward bosses who required blacks who moved to the cities during the Depression to sign up as Democrat voters before they would give those blacks a job.

What you’re missing is that democrats are these people, and those who have no problem welcoming them in.

To a Democrat, a black person is nothing more than a vote.

Do you have no shame? Do you intend to remain an idiot the rest of you life?

@retire05:

Do you have no shame? Do you intend to remain an idiot the rest of you life?

Why yes, he does. He is a proud member of the Fraternal Order of Idiots.

@retire05, #25:

To a Democrat, a black person is nothing more than a vote.

I don’t think you’re fully grasping this difficult “democrat” concept. Black people are democrats. Hispanic people are democrats. Gay people are democrats. A majority of women are democrats.

Maybe the you should try to figure out why that is, rather than continuously declaring that anyone who already knows is an idiot.

@Greg:

Black people are democrats.

Because of FDR and the fact that once the Depression was over, they were no longer on those dusty farms and had moved to the cities which were all run by Democrats who were promising a chicken in every pot.

Hispanic people are democrats.

Why wouldn’t they be? Just look at the nations they come from. They don’t know anything but socialism or communism.

Gay people are democrats

.

Of course they are; Why would they want to belong to a party that had morals?

A majority of women are democrats.

Only women who have been sold the whole “free love and abortion” is a good thing lie.

Yeah, I know how it got that way. Democrats lie and coopt the gains that were really made by Republicans in equal rights and promise income redistribution, you know, taking from someone else to give it to them so that they can continue to be non-productive leeches. Just listen to Bernie Sanders speeches.

But we know that you agree with the Democrats because you’re a Socialist.

Gays have dignity

Not all, I guess

@Greg:

Pfft! Blacks, Hispanics and gays have left the democrat fold and are wiser and better off for it, just ask those who took that step. I know what they will say as I did it myself.

Defending this bigot is just more of the same leftist hypocrisy. It’s so much a habit of you people that you aren’t able to see it in yourselves.

Takei has apologized for his remark…..

I owe an apology.
……….
I recently was asked by a reporter about Justice Clarence Thomas’s dissent in the marriage equality cases, in which he wrote words that really got under my skin, by suggesting that the government cannot take away human dignity through slavery, or though internment.
In my mind that suggested that this meant he felt the government therefore shouldn’t be held accountable, or should do nothing in the face of gross violations of dignity.
When asked by a reporter about the opinion, I was still seething, and I referred to him as a “clown in blackface” to suggest that he had abdicated and abandoned his heritage.
………..
[M]y choice of words was regrettable, not because I do not believe Justice Thomas is deeply wrong, but because they were ad hominem and uncivil, and for that I am sorry.

I often ask fans to keep the level of discourse on this page and in comments high, and to remember that we all love this country and for what it stands for, even if we often disagree passionately about how to achieve those goals.
I did not live up to my own high standards in this instance.

https://www.facebook.com/georgehtakei/posts/1299475283415255

Good for him.
We should be able to disagree without name-calling.

@Greg:

Then wouldn’t you say that generations raised and confined on the welfare state denies its wards their dignity? Just a thought about dependence on the government on Independence Day.

@Nanny G: Well, we usually do. The libs like the name calling bit.

@retire05, #28:

Yeah, I know how it got that way. Democrats lie and coopt the gains that were really made by Republicans in equal rights and promise income redistribution, you know, taking from someone else to give it to them so that they can continue to be non-productive leeches. Just listen to Bernie Sanders speeches.

What would the later years of most Americans be like without redistributive programs such as Social Security and Medicare? What would become of the children of the nation’s economically disadvantaged, without nutritional assistance for mothers and infants, food stamps, subsidized housing, and Medicaid? How many disabled veterans are dependent on redistributive programs to meet their medical needs and to pay the bills?

Those are real questions. Have you got a real answer for any of them?

Your accusation is basically that Democrats steal productive people’s money to buy the votes of those too lazy to make their own way in the world. Here’s a counter accusation: Republicans buy your votes by promising you tax cuts—which are pretty much chicken feed in comparison to what they deliver to the wealthiest—and don’t really give a damn what happens to the poor, the working class, or to the national debt as a result. They can always feel good about themselves by making tax deductible charitable donations. There’s also the added advantage of creating their own domestic supply of poor people desperate enough to work for substandard wages. This should present no problem, so long as labor unions can be eliminated from the picture.

@Greg:

What would the later years of most Americans be like without redistributive programs such as Social Security and Medicare? What would become of the children of the nation’s economically disadvantaged, without nutritional assistance for mothers and infants, food stamps, subsidized housing, and Medicaid? How many disabled veterans are dependent on redistributive programs to meet their medical needs and to pay the bills?

Gullible Greggie; I realize that you subscribe to the socialist view of government, and redistribution of wealth, but history is not on your side. Social Security and Medicare are not redistributive programs. A worker may pay into the system for as much as 49 years before ever realizing the first dollar of return on their forced investment. Medicaid is a redistributive programs.

Now, I ask you; what did the people of this nation do before FDR unconstitutionally got enacted wealth redistribution? Perhaps you can provide a link to pictures of all the people that were starving in the streets during the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl? Were the economically disadvantaged prevented from pulling themselves out of that class and being able to buy homes, start businesses and create wealth? Even those families that fled the Dust Bowl states, that FDR ignored, managed to pull themselves out of such abstract poverty. They survived, and prospered even though there was no unemployment benefits, no welfare, no AFDC, WIC or TANF. How the hell did they do that without nanny government, Gullible Greggie?

As to the veterans; when you put your life on the dotted line and promise to support your nation with your very life, if need be, you are owed by this nation. Caring for our warriors goes back to the days of George Washington, and should be a responsibility placed on all citizens.

Your accusation is basically that Democrats steal productive people’s money to buy the votes of those too lazy to make their own way in the world.

Do you deny that there are those citizens who leech off other productive citizens? If so, explain generational welfare. When our nation guarantees that every child is entitled to at least a high school diploma, why do we still have such a failure rate in our schools? Public education does not cost the poor who pay no taxes, it costs those who pay their taxes, yet it is available to the poor for the taking.

And is someone who owns a flat screened TV, a microwave, a vehicle, a home, really poor by world standards? We have the richest “poor” in the world, who live in conditions that other nations would consider middle class or even wealthy. Yet, leeching off the productive has been made easy by the refusal on the part of Socialists like you to demand personal responsibility.

Here’s a counter accusation: Republicans buy your votes by promising you tax cuts—which are pretty much chicken feed in comparison to what they deliver to the wealthiest—

And what do the wealthy get from government entities that is not available to the poor? Do they get better fire departments, better police departments, better public schools? That is simple another one of your Socialist standard claims.

and don’t really give a damn what happens to the poor, the working class, or to the national debt as a result.

If you were logical, which you are not, you would understand that it is to the benefit of the wealthy to have fewer government dependents. Fewer government dependents means that less revenue would be required by the federal government because it would be spending less and a requirement of less taxes would mean taxes could be lowered. But I understand that Economics 101 is not your forte.

And how hypocritical of you to even mention the national debt after you lefties whined and moaned about the debt up to the time that Obama took office. Now it is almost double what he claims he “inherited.” Yet you are silent about that inconvenient fact.

As to the working class, what is left of it, has not been in such bad shape as it currently is now under Obama. Careful, Gullible Greggie, you’re about to step on your own lip.

They can always feel good about themselves by making tax deductible charitable donations.

Why should anyone donate to a charity when the federal government has decided that it is a charity in, and of, itself? Perhaps you should look into the actions of LBJ who created such a mess. Prior to his “Great Society” scam, the poor did not do with out doctor or hospital care, the elderly had places to go to where they were loved and cared for and children were given a chance by being placed in orphanages where they were educated. But all that was provided by the churches that LBJ wanted to stifle. So he created the “Great Society”, to replace what the churches had always done. Another one of the Democrats failed programs. Those church charities were supported by the wealthy, who gave back without being required to. Congratulations, Democrats, you put a stop to that.

There’s also the added advantage of creating their own domestic supply of poor people desperate enough to work for substandard wages.

It is not the right or conservatives that promote the illegal importation of uneducated, unskilled labor. That’s your side. Again, Economic 101. When labor resources are scarce, wages go up. But when there is an influx of illegals, ready to work for substandard wages, wages go down. The construction industry is a clear example of that.

This should present no problem, so long as labor unions can be eliminated from the picture.

Shall we compare unemployment rates in non-right to work states compared to right to work states?

Now, name me on nation where your ideal of Socialism has ever been a success. Just one.

@Greg:

What would the later years of most Americans be like without redistributive programs such as Social Security and Medicare?

While I can’t speak for ‘most’, I can speak for myself. Had I been allowed to invest my contributions to social security into a private account at some reasonable return rate, I would not need to ever have a ‘social security’ account. I can’t speak of the Medicare financials because there are too many unknowns. I do know that I still pay enough for health insurance coverage that it should easily cover all my ‘actual medical expenses.’. I pay over 8000 a year now for insurance coverage and for the 15 years I have been retired, that would be about 120 k. I suspect ‘actual’ medical costs would have been less than that. but even if I still had to pay the same medical insurance, my retirement (in lieu of SS) would have been very sufficient to cover those expenses. I paid the full amount into SS for 43 years. I’ll never get that returned to me.

@Greg:

This should present no problem, so long as labor unions can be eliminated from the picture.

Labor unions have “long ago’ been eliminated from the picture. The only two remaining unions of significance is government employees and teachers. If not for payroll deductions, these would have vanished long ago. They’re certainly not ‘voluntary’. No other union makes any difference to the overall economy.

@Greg: What would the later years of most Americans be like without redistributive programs such as Social Security and Medicare? What would become of the children of the nation’s economically disadvantaged, without nutritional assistance for mothers and infants, food stamps, subsidized housing, and Medicaid? How many disabled veterans are dependent on redistributive programs to meet their medical needs and to pay the bills?

Look at Greece.
It is like looking into the future IF Leftists continue with their ”redistributive” programs much longer.
There’s a totally irrelevant vote tonight in Greece.
But the Leftist Greek gov’t has already decided what they will do.
Anyone who had managed to save money up until now will be getting a ”haircut.”
The Greeks in charge are also calling this a ”bail-in.”
IF you had saved money in Greek banks you will LOSE 30% of it soon.
Confiscated by the gov’t to pay bills the gov’t owes but refuses to become austere in order to pay.
The Greek Leftists had already made it impossible to take more than a few dollars/day out of your own accounts.
And there’s little-to-no chance of transferring your own money to another country so you can keep what your earned and already paid taxes on.

See:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9963b74c-219c-11e5-aa5a-398b2169cf79.html

@retire05, #35:

Gullible Greggie; I realize that you subscribe to the socialist view of government, and redistribution of wealth, but history is not on your side. Social Security and Medicare are not redistributive programs. A worker may pay into the system for as much as 49 years before ever realizing the first dollar of return on their forced investment.

Wrong. Nearly all insured low income workers receive more back in Social Security benefits than they have paid in to begin with. The same is true of most middle income workers, although reaching the break even point takes longer. In any case, income is being redistributed across time. Current workers are paying for the retirement of former workers; a future generation of current workers will fund benefits of those working today when they ultimately retire.

Republicans who advocate phasing Social Security out by shifting current worker contributions into private sector investment schemes never bother to explain how the revenue stream lost to the program will be made up. Why? Because either logical answer reveal the huge flaw in their own logic: The lost money would either have to come from general revenue—meaning either increased taxes or an even more rapidly rising national debt—or benefits to current retirees would have to be slashed. Take your pick. There is no Door Number 3.

@Redteam, #36:

Had I been allowed to invest my contributions to social security into a private account at some reasonable return rate, I would not need to ever have a ‘social security’ account.

The stock market cannot make everyone a winner. Stock values have rapidly gone up over past years because demand exceeds the supply of shares, not because of a comparable rapid increase in the income the corporations they represent produce. I think there’s a large component of imaginary value in the stock market today. It’s that which explains why values can suddenly fall through the floorboards the moment confidence is lost.

Presently the stock market is being propped up by suppressing interest rates to absurdly low levels. This is why many financially conservative people have high liquid assets, even though they presently receive a totally pitiful amount of income from it. I’m in that category. I’ve heard the mantra, “The biggest risk is taking no risk.” Uh, no. Not for someone my own age. I half expect a stock market crash in the not-too-distant future.

I don’t think the stock market is a good bet for the average person, dollar cost averaging notwithstanding. A person’s timing might be lucky, or it might not. That’s not to say it isn’t for you. You may be more alert and knowledgeable than average and might stay ahead of events.

@Greg: Since you seem to want to insinuate that I don’t know what I’m talking about. Let me restate my sentence: Had I been allowed to invest my contributions to social security into a private account at ‘the prime rate’ I would not need to ever have a ‘social security’ account. That clear it up a little. No gamble, just put it in a bank account that interest is paid at the prime rate. No muss, no fuss, no gambling. No magic.

@Greg:

Current workers are paying for the retirement of former workers; a future generation of current workers will fund benefits of those working today when they ultimately retire.

So you admit that Social Security is nothing more than a Ponzi scheme.

It’s a long-term social insurance scheme. Owing to demographics, there will be times when more money is going out than coming in. One such results from the Baby Boomer generation reaching retirement age. Baby Boomers will not live forever. At some point we’ll be dying off at the same accelerated rate at which we were born.

It’s possible that stock market investing might be a Ponzi scheme. People are convinced that the value of their mutual funds will go up forever. Actually, as with anything else, values go up only for so long as more people want to buy stocks than to sell them. Hence the scheme to prop values up longer by artificially depressing interest rates, and by forcing a shift of retirement funds from Social Security into private investments.

A lot of people will get enormously wealthy before it all suddenly hits the fan again, and will probably bail out before the average person realizes what’s happening.

This is the US population pyramid.
Not a ”pyramid, is it?
More like an arrowhead.
comment image
But there are PLENTY of potential workers to support those hitting retirement now.
If only more of them were working.

This, however, is a REAL population pyramid:
comment image
Yeah, it’s Gaza Strip.
Problem is 68% of them are children too young to support themselves.
The elderly are only 5% of their total population!

@Redteam, #41:

Unfortunately I’m not aware of any bank that’s paying depositors the prime rate. The highest interest they’re paying these days seems to be slightly over 2% on long-term CDs, and that’s unusually “generous.”

@Greg: I made a calculation for 45 years using 3% for the entire period (and most years since 1960 the prime rate has been that high or higher, up into the teens for many of them. Anyone in that time period would have done very well. no reason to think it won’t average at least 3 for the next 45 (though if the Dims stay in control, we probably won’t have a country in 45 years

PS, there is no requirement that the money be invested in US companies.

@Greg:

In reading over this thread, I began to wonder what some of these “conservatives” here think “dignity” really is. It sounded to me like they believe that Hitler couldn’t take away the dignity of the Jews that were imprisoned in concentration camps, being tortured and exterminated, so I looked up the word “dignity” in my dictionary. It said that “dignity” was the state of being worthy, honored or esteemed. Well, perhaps in the eyes of God, there is some “dignity” in being persecuted, enslaved, tortured or exterminated, but those actions don’t exactly heap “honor,” “worth” or “esteem” upon the unfortunate victims in any Earthly sense that I can think of. Sounds to me like somebody is trying to sell those “victims” the Brooklyn Bridge. And it sounds to me like Clarence Thomas has bought that bridge.

@George Wells:

It sounded to me like they believe that Hitler couldn’t take away the dignity of the Jews that were imprisoned in concentration camps, being tortured and exterminated, so I looked up the word “dignity” in my dictionary. It said that “dignity” was the state of being worthy, honored or esteemed.

Obviously you cannot even comprehend a dictionary.

Those persecuted by Hitler were most certainly worthy of being honored and esteemed.

Dignity, if you have it, is not something that can be taken away from you, nor can it be given to you. It is inert, internal.

The person without dignity was George Takei, who is now trying to back track his racist remarks about a SCOTUS Justice that knows a thing or two about being raised in the era of Jim Crow and still maintaining personal dignity. You have just proved that if a queer dishonors someone with true dignity, you will attack the target of his vile remarks, not the person who has dignity.

#48:

Before I answer your #48, please confirm that this:

“You have just proved that if a queer dishonors someone with true dignity, you will attack the target of his vile remarks, not the person who has dignity.”

…says what you meant it to say.
No, not the insult to me. Who does the last phrase refer to, and how does that fit in this sentence?

Thanks.

@George Wells:

“You have just proved that if a queer dishonors someone with true dignity, you will attack the target of his vile remarks, not the person who made the vile remarks.”

Fixed it.