Socialist versus Democrat
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews recently posed a question to Hillary Clinton relative to the meaning of Socialist verses Democrat.
While Bernie Sanders has proudly declared himself a Socialist, Hillary Clinton is obviously a Democrat, so Matthews popped the question to her about the differences between these two political ideologies. Hillary, ruffled by the blatant word Socialist, spat out, “I’m not one!” Then she answered “I’m a Progressive Democrat who believes that we are better off in this country when we’re trying to solve problems together.”
Doesn’t Hillary’s definition of “together” actually exclude the homeless, fatherless, and hungry children who yearn for a better life with a healthy economy and jobs and wholesome education for those who desperately need them? Why should this vast group of people be treated patronizingly like a herd of helpless animals?
While government do-gooders take care of those in poverty with great handouts, with their other hand they destroy citizen’s rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Our big impersonal government always does things badly. They impose confiscatory taxes which impoverish middle class workers.
This kind of socialist government distributes exorbitant amounts of money to run incredibly wasteful programs. These efforts fall apart when those who are taxpayers run out of money and join the poverty class while elected officials, like royalty, scoop up ever bigger salaries and fund useless pet projects.
The progressive movement began over 100 years ago in Europe and spread to America. Progressing to what? There’s the big question. And why have the progressives always infiltrated the Democratic Party? One good answer to the question of Socialist versus Democrat is clearly laid out in George Orwell’s book titled Animal Farm and its story about the causes and consequences of the Bolshevik Revolution in early 1900s. He concluded, with his famous words, “Only pigs have rights,” It’s rather clear that America in on the same downward spiral.
A shorter humorous commentary about confiscatory taxation and other evils is Ogden Nash’s poem Are You a Snodgrass Too? Read it and ask which category, Snodgrass or Swozzler, fits you.
— Pauline Clark, Xenia
Labor fiduciary ruling
Issues over past seven years about insurance and annuities are more confusing. As an agent since 1993, I think it is important to stop when the Department of Labor gets involved because it is about who controls money. It is in my professional opinion Obama’s health Care expansion into retirement plans — a system having us accept economic communism, is not capitalism for the populist.
DOL ruling’s “agenda” is about seizing states’ power to regulate all 50 states “authority” on insurance matters is at issue.
Full implement affects your readers’ retirement plans more than who wins presidential election. As some of your readers know, I have tried not to be high profile in the community to protect my business and family. (Have not ran for office since 2011. In 2008, I held 49 percent county commission votes on spending only $200 versus opponent’s $25,000).
This ruling is the competitive and risk-free indexed products. Indexed annuities actually have outperformed investments sold by financial planners. Certain agreements need exposed!
DOL authority can be “beaten” but both political parties want to force retirement annuities into risky stock markets- including out of country. Remember GATT and NaFTA trade?
It, once again, is in my opinion the bipartisan initiative to force a “global” economy by taking the right of individuals to choose to put their retirement into annuities rather than stock markets. – what? Life and annuity products have always held for more money in reserves than banks and FDIC securities. In 2008, only two insurers needed bailed out because it was stockholder controlled rather than policyholder controlled.
My conclusion is the DOL should leave states rights to regulate insurance alone.
Also, conservatives and liberal both worship non-licensed non-insurance people such as Orman, Ramsey and Clark. All speak with authority to public but refuse public debate. Because no public debate “curtain” agreements create government agencies — just like Obamacare. The delayed implementation is deceptive that really it will take a Basteel in France or Peasants Revolt out of fuedal England to stop curtain agendas — it affects hundreds of millions Americans.
— Jeff Flora, Bath Township