Flashback Of The Day


All scams start small to entice…

h/t Kerry Picket

About The Author

  • Igor

    No mention of the word “tax”, I notice.

  • Dr. Mauser

    What I’m curious about is which employers had to pay an EQUAL amount, and which ones had to pay DOUBLE. I’m guessing certain industries were favored….

  • Tallyman

    De suckas were fooled then. De suckas are fooled now. The employer pays now an amount equal to what’s deducted on the wage slip. So the real rate deducted from the real wages paid by the employer is 15.1% for the combined SS and Medicare. The employer paid share is the hidden tax on the total wages paid to each employee.

    FDR continued the failed statist policies of Hoover, which continued to fail. The depression did not end until men were put to work in WW II in FDR’s third term. ” Hoover tried to combat the ensuing Great Depression with government enforced efforts, public works projects such as the Hoover Dam, tariffs such as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, an increase in the top tax bracket from 25% to 63%, and increases in corporate taxes.” Note how Hoover’s policies matched Democrat make work and taxation policies,then and today. FDR, like Barack, blamed his predecessor for the continuing failure of the economy and for jobs not replaced. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover

    History repeats. Republicans like Hoover, or Bush with Medicare part D, no child left behind,TARP and GM bailout, never learn that Democrat-medium always fails.

  • GoodMojo1

    “…your employer will be compelled…”. “your employer required to pay “. “…this is NOT a voluntary plan…”. “Your employer MUST make this deduction“.

    NOT WRITTEN: “Failure to comply will result in very unpleasant encounters involving government agents with more and bigger guns than yours…”

  • n.n

    Both Social Security and Medicare could work if inflation was controlled. The former as cost-of-living would exhibit little variance within an economic district. The latter as medical costs would not rise to compensate. Both are backed by productivity, and neither conflate contributory entitlements and welfare, so progressive corruption could be mitigated. Of course, it would still be necessary to distinguish between luxuries and necessities, and restrict the scope of the latter accordingly.

    • Igor

      They’d work even better if they were voluntary, n.n

      • n.n

        No, that would defeat the purpose of a social security policy. The issue is how to ensure a proportional return, and to mitigate progressive corruption. The alternative to a contributory entitlement would be welfare, which would engender a demonstrably worse outcome. Social security should start with the family, but that quality of progress does not seem forthcoming.

      • n.n

        Something that must be noted is that the majority of Democrats support state-sponsored murder, at the mother’s behest, but carried out by the state, at the rate of around 1 million annually in America alone. These people will never compromise on anything, because they are completely lost. The only people who may still negotiate are the so-called “choice” people; but, they will not do it without a substantial bribe.