Posted on 10/21/2016 11:25:17 AM PDT by Lorianne
I find the whole thing astonishing and whats remarkable is the amount of anger whether its on the Republican side or the Democratic side, the Wall Street mogul said at the World Economic Forum in Davos. Bernie Sanders, to me, is almost more stunning than some of whats going on in the Republican side. How is that happening, why is that happening?
He Doesnt Get Why People Are Angry
David Sirota just penned a very important and interesting article zeroing in on how Wall Street is maneuvering to propose and implement a new retirement tax on Americans under a Hillary Clinton Administration.
Leading the charge is billionaire financial oligarch Tony James, who is COO of private equity giant Blackstone. Mr. James is a generous contributor to Hillary Clintons Presidential run, and is listed as a Hillblazer by her campaign for having raised at least $100,000 toward her candidacy.
While many Americans already know that much, most of you will be totally unaware of his aggressive plan to force a 3% payroll tax on the public which will be immediately funneled to Wall Street management firms, including alternative managers such as hedge funds and private equity. It seems like a very bizarre time to initiate such a proposal considering many public pension funds are actively ditching alternative managers after realizing theyve been paying extraordinarily high fees for pitiful performance. In other words, theyve been ripped off.
For example, recall what we learned in Aprils post, Let Them Sell Their Summer Homes NYCs Largest Public Pension to Ditch Hedge Funds:
SNIP
Great Post!
First let’s kill all the hedge fund managers.
Oh hell no!
The Federal Reserve and our fiat money are enabling the highest levels of corruption and progressive/crony control.
they control the supply of money - the most important commodity of all. Wall Street is too big to fail as they are an arm of state control and the US Government.
What do you expect?
Isn’t this exactly what Conservatives were pushing when they wanted to “privatize” Social Security?
Sirota is a big leftie.
She is going to splinter her own party over this.
Yes.
I want something like the Vanguard 500 with a 0.16% expense ratio. Hillary's gang probably want something with a 2% expense ratio and a 1% marketing fee... (marketing a government program? Why do you need that. Shut up and pay it peasant!).
Seemingly, just as futile.
Inmemorium, Jack Cade.
He knows the Clintons are very good at Funneling Money
Here is a description of the Ryan Medicare and Social Security partial privatization plans I found on the League of Women Voters website. It’s not the same as this proposal at all.
http://lwv.org/content/federal-privatization-ryan-plan
If everybody invested even a portion of their SS money in a Vanguard S&P 500 index fund, the money is still going to Wall Street due to the suddenly increased demand for the underlying stocks, the market will skyrocket. Temporarily.
Most willingly invest some of their 401K or other pension vehicle’s money in stock funds at present. The Ryan proposal would allow this to be done with your own Social Security contributions. Yes, Wall Street benefits, but wherever you put your money for investment, an institution is going to benefit even if you keep it with your local bank-and earn nothing on it.
The proposal by James would be an actual tax - not voluntary. The gubmint slaps a tax on us and funnels some of the money directly to Wall Street (you know the gubmint would keep most of it for “administrative purposes”. What could be more insidious than that?
For decades, big gubmint liberals have been proposing schemes to divest people of their retirement funds. Most of them have been aimed at getting to the money after it’s already been salted away. This one aims to take it before you have a chance to salt it away and use it to buy backing and influence. Sick.
Regarding a so-called federal retirement tax, patriots are reminded that a previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified that Congress is prohibited from appropriating taxes in the name of state power issues, basically any issue, such as retirement, that Congress cannot justify under its constitutional, Article I, Section 8-limited powers.
Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States. Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
The reason that there are unconstitutional federal social spending programs like Social Security and Medicare is the following imo. Taking Social Security for example, FDRs state-sovereignty ignoring justices wrongly accepted Congresss claim that the Constitutions General Welfare Clause (1.8.1) gave Congress the specific power to establish social spending programs like Social Security as evidenced by the Courts decision in Helvering v. Davis.
But the major constitutional problem with regarding the General Welfare Clause as a specific delegation of power is the following. Noting that James Madison is generally regarded as the father of the Constitution, FDRs activist justices wrongly ignored President James Madisons official clarification that the General Welfare Clause was not intended as an express delegation of power, but meant to be understood only as an introductory clause for the clauses that followed it in Section 8 which are delegations of specific power.
To refer the power in question to the clause "to provide for common defense and general welfare" would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms "common defense and general welfare" embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust. James Madison, Veto of federal public works bill, 1817
Remember in November !
Patriots need to support Trump / Pence by also electing a new, state sovereignty-respecting Congress that will not only work within its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers to support Trumps vision for making America great again for everybody, but will also put a stop to unconstitutonal federal taxes and likewise unconstitutional inteference in state affairs as evidenced by FDRs unconstitutional New Deal spending programs.
Note that such a Congress will also probably be willing to fire state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices.
Well, to be fair the Ryan proposal is also a tax. A portion of your SSI taxes would be self-directed, but it would still be mandatory.
I agree with you about the origins and lack of Constitutionality of SS and Medicare.
Basically anything can be justified under the General Welfare clause. For example everyone could be given a swimming pool, tennis court or basketball court at their home because exercise is a general good. They way they interpret the General Welfare clause, that would be an easy case to make.
But, since the money was taken involuntarily by Federal decree, does not make it right to then turn it over to Wall Street by Federal decree.
Funneling billions of middle class money to Wall Street? We already have that...its called IRAs and 401Ks.
We should not stop there. Then we could eliminate unnecessary and undesirable but constitutional programs. However, can we admit that, as right as we are, this is a fantasy that will NEVER OCCUR?
Suppose that Republicans are more sympathetic to our program than are Demonrats (this is NOT to be taken for granted but just suppose). Suppose that we start with just the two programs you mentioned. Suppose that there are 435 Republican candidates for 435 full Congressional seats and each and every one makes a "contract with America" just to eliminate Social Security and Medicare (and Medicaid for that matter). Each makes his/her position quite public. After the votes are counted, not 3 of these candidates would be elected.
If you disagree, tell us what you think to back your position and make the election of many candidates a credible possibility. Convince me.
Our constitution's written provisions have been intentionally (liberal intentions) eroded since at least Lincoln and probably earlier than him.
“It seems like a very bizarre time to initiate such a proposal considering many public pension funds are actively ditching alternative managers after realizing theyve been paying extraordinarily high fees for pitiful performance.”
This seems to explain perfectly the timing and urgency of the proposal from Wall Street’s perspective.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.