Those were the words Obama used when he was discussing the latest jobs numbers. Obama was telling members of Congress not to muck up the wonderful job Obama is doing with the economy. The problem with all this is that Republicans are not mucking things up and the jobs numbers are once again an illusion.

The 0.2% drop from 8.5% to 8.3% is not the result of more people getting work it is the result of a continually shrinking labor pool. The Obamabots and the BLS have figured the best way to get the numbers down is to stop counting. In that light we have seen the numbers drop slightly over the past few months and those numbers have dropped because there are fewer people in the labor pool.

In order to make Obama look really good this month 1.2 MILLION more people have been knocked off the labor rolls. That is right, 1.2 MILLION people have been knocked off the rolls in one month.

Look for this trend to continue as the regime works to make it appear as if things are getting better when they are not. Keep in mind that just because these 1.2 MILLION people (who are only a small part of the total number) are no longer counted as part of the labor pool does not mean they are not people who need money and need a job. They are just people who are not counted so the numbers will look better.

The real unemployment rate is well above 10% but, as with anything involving numbers, the data can be manipulated to portray whatever is desired. Obama strung the country along for three years and now that he wants to be reelected numbers will be manipulated to make it look as if things are working.

We have 5 TRILLION dollars in new debt since this man took office. In just three years he surpassed the debt George Bush left us after eight and his policies have been complete failures. This does not even take into account the disaster we will see once Obamacare takes effect. Hell, why do you think they set it up to take place after the 2012 election?

We cannot afford four more years of Obama particularly when he will not have to worry about being reelected. He has led us down the path of ruin and if he gets four more years he will destroy us.

If we can’t get rid of him we need to ensure that the Congress is completely in the hands of the Republican party so we can do to him what Jesse Jackson wanted to do.

Yes, Barack Obama told Republicans not to muck this up. His party has failed to pass a budget in over 1000 days and Harry Reid said the Senate will not pass one this year. Another election year act of cowardice. Republicans need to tell Obama and Reid that NOTHING will be considered until a budget is passed and signed, period.

One other thing. While Obama was finger wagging about mucking things up he said:

They just need to get it done. It shouldn’t be that complicated. Now is not the time for self-inflicted wounds to our economy. Now is the time for action. Breitbart

The 2% cut Obama wants continued is the cut in Social Security that workers pay. The Social Security Ponzi scheme is in serious financial trouble and will be insolvent in a decade as politicians continue to use the money collected to expand government and drive us into bankruptcy. Cutting from the fund that is already in financial trouble is the very definition of a self inflicted wound. This will have to be addressed in the future but by then we will probably be at the point of no return with Obama demanding a 100% tax on rich people who will be defined as anyone who makes money.

We have a person with no leadership experience and a Socialist philosophy running the country into the ground.

His handlers must be proud and there is no doubt his mother and father would be proud. After all, they came from a long line of Socialists and Communists.

We need to vote this man out of office (along with the rest of the idiots in his party) or we need to have our own occupy movement, one that they definitely will not like.

Our Founders would be shooting by now…

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Congress does not know how to manage money. That is a plain simple fact of life that simply cannot be rationalized away no matter how hard one tries (and Congress critters try). They have shown it time and again by spending more than we pay in taxes and then raising taxes to cover their inability to manage money. They continue to raise taxes and spend more until someone comes along and manages to get taxes lowered.

Then revenues increase and what happens? The Congress spends even MORE!

Social Security is another example of their inability to manage money. They extorted money from our paychecks because we are too stupid to save for our own futures. Then they supposedly put that money away to actually pay us when we retire. The problem is, Congress saw trillions of dollars sitting there gathering dust while waiting to be paid to retirees and decided to add it to the general fund and, you guessed it, spend it. The so called Social Security trust fund holds nothing more than nearly three trillion dollars in IOUs that are worthless.

Sure, they are backed by the full faith and credit of the US Government but there is little faith in our government because we borrow 40% of every dollar we spend.

We now have another example of the inability of Congress to manage money. Congress has raided the money that is supposed to pay for Obamacare. Millions of dollars have been taken from the Obamacare funds in order to pay other bills or to spend on one pet project or another.

I think Obamacare will be ruled unconstitutional but if it is not what happens when it comes time to pay for it? What happens to this magical law that is supposed to pay for itself? What happens to that cost curve?

Congress will claim there is not enough money and that taxes need to be raised or services cut or both.

All because Congress cannot properly manage money.

We need radical change in DC and we can start by replacing all those members of Congress who have been there more than one term.

Source:
Washington Times

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Social Security was supposed to be the safety net that allowed people to have a little money coming in when they retired. This is a program that was designed to assist those incapable of saving for their own futures and it has morphed into an albatross that includes all kinds of things like disability payments to people who are allegedly unable to work.

The money that is taken in each month is sent to the Treasury and the Treasury issues a worthless piece of paper indicating that the money is there if it should be needed. All Social Security has to do is ask and they can get the money they need to make payments. Nice idea except the money confiscated goes into the general fund and politicians spend it on everything under the sun. When Social Security asks for the money to make payments our country has to borrow it from another country (usually one that is not a friend) and then pay interest on the money borrowed. The process costs us a hell of a lot more than it should. If they had left the money alone there would be no problem.

This leads us to the current debt ceiling “crisis” and the statement by Barack Obama that he could not guarantee that Social Security checks will go out on August 3^rd if the debt ceiling is not raised. This is a blatant lie because Social Security is required to be paid and that means other programs will be cut so that Social Security recipients get their money. Besides, there is still plenty of money coming in to service the debt and pay Social Security. Other programs will have to be cut. Look at it this way, either the Congress makes serious cuts now or they will happen automatically in August.

The whole issue shows why privatizing Social Security is an important and necessary measure. People work to put their money into the system and then government takes that money and spends it on things for which it was never intended. When trouble hits, Obama (using scare tactics) says he can’t guarantee people will get the money they paid in. In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled that people have no right to receive Social Security and government can end it at any time (they would have to change the law).

The federal government had its chance and it terribly mismanaged the funds. If any private business took money for one thing and spent it on another and then could not meet the original obligation the people in charge would end up in jail. Ironically, the people in Congress who gave us the Social Security mess would be leading that charge.

It is time to privatize Social Security and allow people to put money in accounts that they own and that they have control over. It is time they owned it all and were able to pass it on to their heirs. This would have an added benefit of allowing people to retire when they felt they could rather than having to hit a government mandated age before they could draw the money. People would be better off and they would not be dependent on government (which is why politicians don’t want you in control).

I know the tired arguments about market crashes and all that. There are funds that start out with risk and get less risky as the worker gets older. There is a certain amount of risk in anything but it is unlikely that people will go completely bankrupt. The simple truth is they can be no worse off than they are right now with all the money they “contributed” squandered on wasteful government programs and Obama telling them they might not get a check in August (and for who knows how long). If they controlled their own money this would not be an issue because they would be in control of their own assets.

The government in general has mismanaged the program by wasting the money. They now have to borrow to make payroll, so to speak. Obama as much as admitted that the program would be better off if we privatized it when he admitted he can’t guarantee that people will get their checks.

It is time to move Social Security away from government control and put it back in the hands of the people who actually earn the money. It will take a while and we still have obligations to those currently drawing Social Security. We could afford to do that if we open a lot of off shore oil leases and allow American businesses to drill for oil. We will create jobs, will produce our own oil and gas and a portion of the revenue can be earmarked specifically for Social Security to pay those currently in the system (with no possibility of the money being used for anything else).

Let the younger generation start setting aside money for their own retirement and let them have a prosperous old age free of dependence on government.

You know they can’t sustain it. You know they can’t run it effectively. You know they can’t keep their hands out of the till. You know that they cannot guarantee you will receive your money. And they know it too.

So let us do the right thing, the smart thing, and push for privatizing Social Security.

We certainly cannot possibly do any worse than the government has.

And in all likeliness we will do much better.

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Social Security is a bad program that has gotten worse over the years. It is designed to keep people enslaved to the government by taking money from them while they earn and then giving them a small retirement when they end their working careers. This deprives them of the opportunity to save and invest the money on their own, a step that would actually allow them to earn much more money and allow them to say what is done with it.

The Supreme Court has ruled that no one has a legal right to Social Security benefits. This is a bad decision but it looks like it will play out that way in the long run. Social Security is broke and there is no reasonable way to fix it. There will be no money left for those who are paying today.

A Democrat Policy Group is recommending that Social Security be fixed by denying payments to those who are wealthy when they retire. If you have the brains to put money away and save for retirement and happen to do well then you might not get the benefit that you paid into for all of your working career.

In what world is this fair?

Why should the rich pay into Social Security (or a person who is not particularly wealthy during his working career but saves a lot) only to be denied the money when they retire? What rule allows for the confiscation of a person’s money and then the redistribution of that money to others?

Why should the rich pay into Social Security? To top it off, the plan calls for higher Social Security taxes and raising the income level (the cap) on which it is collected. Why would people pay into this knowing full well that they would not get anything when they retire?

Most Democrats oppose this plan while some Republicans favor it or some variation of it. Who the hell do these people think they are?

As for me, I don’t need them to pay me Social Security. All I want is for them to send me a check for the money I have paid in (and I don’t even need any interest on it) and for them to stop taking Social Security out of my check. I will be more than happy to invest the money myself and I will live quite well in retirement. I am also sure the people who are actually rich (and even those considered rich by the government) would be happy to do the same.

I am not rich by any stretch of the imagination. I just work hard for my money and I save some of it for the future.

Others would do well to follow that example.

The members of Congress would do well to learn from that as well.

Class warfare is here and they are stoking the fire. Keep it up and things will get ugly as the rich find other things to do with their money.

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

The Social Security Act brought a new era of Socialism to America by allowing the government to confiscate some of our money and then dole it out to us when we retire. The amount of benefits is more than some paid in and less than others did. Along the way, Social Security expanded to cover things that it was never intended to take care of. It is a terrible system that does not allow us to decide what to do with our money. When we die (especially if we die before we retire) our money is just part of the pot and goes to someone else. We cannot pass it on to our heirs.

Social Security is also broke. Instead of putting the money aside so it could be used for retirement, the government issued worthless pieces of paper for the money and then spent it. Since there is no money, the people who currently work are paying for those who currently draw Social Security.

Social Security ensures that the elderly are slaves to the government. They depend on a monthly income that is subject to the whims of the people in Congress. Benefits can be cut and seniors have no say. Politicians use Social Security as a weapon to threaten the elderly and gain compliance.

When government holds your sustenance in its hands you will do what it wants.

Obama’s deficit panel has a draft of its recommendations and one of those is to cut Social Security benefits. The elderly will take it on the chin because, through no fault of theirs, the government is broke. If these folks had been able to invest their own money they would be better off and not held hostage by a government that uses them as pawns. It won’t be long before they use means testing to decide if we get Social Security. You can pay in but if you are successful you won’t get anything back. You will be paying for someone else’s retirement. It really is Socialism Security.

Combine the cuts with Obamacare and its rationing of care and the elderly are truly screwed.

We are responsible for our own future and it is not up to government to take our money and then dole it out to us, if it deems us worthy, when we retire.

Another thing the panel recommends is to remove the deduction for home mortgage interest. If the elderly still make house payments they will be in a bad way.

And so much for not raising taxes on the middle class.

At least the younger people have time to recover. The elderly are not so fortunate.

Your government should fear you. It should work for you and it should not be your master.

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Social Security was never supposed to be a complete retirement plan. It was a plan that provided insurance to those who retired so that they would have some income after their working years ended. There have been revisions along the years and they have expanded the scope of Social Security to something it was never intended to be. One of the provisions enacted was to index cost of living allowances (COLA) to inflation. When there is inflation the COLA goes up and when there is no inflation there is no COLA.

The government has announced that, for the second year in a row, there will be no COLA because there is supposedly no inflation. Prices are rising but there is not yet a measured inflation.

One would think that since there are rules in place that they would be followed. This is a pipe dream when it comes to Washington DC. Last year the politicians passed a law to give Social Security recipients a $250 check to make up for not getting a COLA. If the mechanism in place determined that there should be no COLA then why did they circumvent that mechanism and pay the money anyway?

When I originally wrote about this recent COLA news I indicated that it would not be long before Congress worked to send another check to people who did not get a COLA. Keep in mind that they did not get a COLA because of the law that Congress passed, but that makes no difference.

After all, it is an election year.

As I predicted, the Congress is working to pay another $250 to offset something to which Social Security recipients are not entitled (in accordance with the law).

Representative Earl Pomeroy (Democrat, North Dakota), who introduced the legislation, had this to say:

“Seniors who rely on their modest Social Security payments need these cost-of-living adjustments for their day-to-day survival,” Pomeroy said. “Passing this bill will ensure that the lack of cost-of-living adjustment will not jeopardize seniors’ ability to survive on their benefits.” My Way News

The message here is that Seniors are DEPENDENT on government. Seniors, according to Pomeroy, rely on the payments from government which means that they are at the mercy of the government when it comes to the amount of money they will receive. He also is saying that the laws the Congress passed dealing with COLA jeopardize senior’s ability to survive.

In other words, seniors depend on government to survive. This is not a place anyone should EVER desire to be.

By any measure, money paid to Social Security would have returned much better profits than government if invested in the market. The claim that seniors would have been wiped out is wrong. First of all, the most recent legislation would have exempted people over a certain age so they would have been unaffected. Those who are younger would have had plenty of time to recoup the loss. Second of all, if the money had been invested the return would have been higher so the amount lost would not have been as devastating.

In addition, had the system been set up that way decades ago, people would be much better off and not waiting for government to hand them a few more scraps. If those accounts belonged to the people (it IS their money) they would control it, it would not be taken by the government to spend on worthless endeavors and the money could be passed to heirs thus ensuring growth of wealth in this country.

But government can’t have people being wealthy and independent in their senior years.

How else will government control the people if they are not at its mercy?

The lesson is to save as much as you can. The old saying about paying yourself first is great advice. Decide how much you can save and then invest it in a vehicle that pays good interest. A balance between interest and risk is a good idea.

If people fail to save they will be at the mercy of government, which is just where they want you.

They need that to pander for votes.

And to control the population…

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

In fact, don’t blame any politician.

The official announcement will soon be made that there will be no Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) for Social Security recipients next year. The announcement will come just before an election that is generally recognized as one that will be tough on Democrats and this announcement will not make the election any easier for them.

The lack of COLA next year marks the second year that there is no COLA and this year was the first. Why are the politicians picking on Social Security recipients? They aren’t. COLA is based on inflation and about 40 years ago Congress made Social Security increases (the COLAs) automatically index to inflation and automatically go into effect. Since there was no inflation the previous year there was no increase in 2010 and since there was no inflation this year there will be no increase for 2011. When inflation does arrive (and it will whether they intend for it to or not) Social Security recipients will get a COLA increase.

Of course, the fact that Democrats are not to blame does not mean the information should not be used against them for political gain. They are in charge and there will be no increase so beat them over the head with that information. Very few people will understand why there is no COLA and why they did not get the increase. Most people who receive Social Security feel entitled to the increases because they have always been there. They will associate the lack of increase with Democrat policies.

It is not like the Democrats don’t play politics with the issue. They sent out checks for $250 to each Social Security recipient this past year to make up for the fact that there was no COLA. There was no Cost of Living Allowance increase because there was no increase in the cost of living but Democrats ignored the law that governs COLA increases and paid recipients anyway. Not only did this cost us millions of dollars that we do not have but it also resulted in over 20 million dollars being sent to dead people and to those serving time in jail.

Government efficiency at its best.

Democrats played politics with Social Security because they know that seniors will be upset and vote against them (seniors are the most reliable voters). They will attempt to do the same this time around. Watch for some statement on the subject just prior to election day.

I personally feel that there should be no increase. The law provides increases when the cost of living goes up and is indexed to inflation. If inflation goes up the recipients get an increase and this has been happening for decades. The law also provides that if there is no inflation then there is no increase. Since we have been in a deflationary cycle, there should be NO increase.

What sense does it make to have a law if they are just going to ignore it?

This issue brings to light a much larger problem and that is letting the government run retirement in the first place.

People on Social Security are at the mercy of the politicians in DC. The government confiscates money in the name of Social Security and then spends that money on its pet projects. It leaves a worthless piece of paper (an IOU) for Social Security. This paper is worthless because the government does not have the money to pay back the debt. When Social Security takes in less than it needs and requires money to be paid on one of those IOUs the federal government must BORROW the money to make the payment. This is all because government looks at Social Security taxes as another pot of money to spend on its pet projects. If the money had been put away and dedicated for Social Security the system would be solvent and there would be no issue but we can never trust government to do this.

This is why each individual should be in charge of his own retirement. People should invest their own money in their own programs based upon what they think they will need for retirement. If you are in charge of your own money then YOU get to decide if you need an increase one year over the next. You get to invest and you are not limited to what some government bureaucrat says you deserve.

And you are not being paid with the money taken from today’s generation or money borrowed from the Chinese.

Social Security should never have been instituted. It is one more way for government to control a segment of the population and it is a Socialist scheme.

What we need is to be able to invest OUR money (it is OURS) and we need to be able to do so without government interference. If a system must be in place to assist those who do not have the ability to save for retirement or those who wish to abrogate that responsibility then it needs to be one that the people themselves control. People need to be able to say where their money gets invested and they need to maintain ownership of it so they can pass it to their heirs when they die. It is not right to work all your life and to pay into SS and then lose it all should you die before drawing any of the money. IT IS YOURS.

A market based system (much like the TSP retirement system federal workers enjoy) would allow people to control their money and they could pass it on when they die.

I know the arguments from the fear mongers who say that the market crash would have wiped out the savings of the elderly. The reforms proposed would not have applied to them and how much worse off could they have been?

The government has no money and it will not be long before something has to be done and no matter what it is it will only be a bandage.

Personal responsibility extends to planning for retirement.

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Social Security is in the red this year meaning that it will pay out more than it takes in in payroll taxes. The system was already unsustainable but was expected to have money for at least a few more years. However, the economy has millions of people who are not working and when they are not working they are not paying into Social Security.

That, of course, is only part of the problem. The bigger problem is that the federal government has spent all the Social Security money collected over the years. We have been told for years about the Social Security trust fund as if there is actually a fund with money in it. There is not but that myth continues as evidenced in this article:

The deficit will last through 2011, then an improving economy will put it back into balance for three years, then it will dip back into the red in 2015, the actuary said. The program has enough money in its trust fund to cover the annual deficit for two decades beyond that. Washington Times

This is an actuary perpetuating the myth. If the uninformed were to read that paragraph the assumption would be that there is a trust fund full of money that will fund SS for two decades.

In reality there is nothing more than a drawer with a bunch of IOUs. The federal government requires SS to send the money it collects (above what it needs to make payments) to the Treasury and in return the Treasury issues a Treasury Bond. It is basically a piece of paper like a bank deposit slip. It tells the Social Security Administration that it deposited a certain amount of money into the Treasury.

The problem is, once the money hits the Treasury it goes into the general fund and is spent by Congress. In other words, Congress is using Social Security money to pay for other things under the guise that it will pay the money later. The only fault in the plan is that the government does not have the money to pay back. We are trillions of dollars in debt and there is no way that we can afford to pay our bills without borrowing even more money. Social Security money has been spent and will not be replaced. We will either go deeper and deeper in debt borrowing money or burden people with tax increases to pay back what should have never been spent in the first place. Keep in mind, the special bonds purchased are supposed to be redeemed later but as the Office of Budget and Management states:

These [Trust Fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other Trust Fund expenditures – but only in a bookkeeping sense…. They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large Trust Fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government’s ability to pay benefits. (from FY 2000 Budget, Analytical Perspectives, p. 337)

If the money collected over the years had been invested in precious metals or placed in interest bearing accounts there would be no worry about the solvency of SS. We would have more than enough money to pay people and things would be good.

But the greedy politicians in DC could not keep their grubby little hands out of the till. They have committed malfeasance and bankrupted the socialized retirement system that was established long ago. SS should never have been created but if they had to do so then they should have ensured it would be protected from the greed and corruption that permeates our government.

Face it. If a private company did this with retirement funds the people responsible would be in jail and the dolts in Congress would be attacking them mercilessly. You can bet that no CEO would be able to get away with saying that he would simply borrow the money to fund the system.

And no company could remain in business being run by such people. This might explain why we are on our way to financial collapse.

The Treasury bonds Social Security holds in place of its money are backed by the full faith and credit of the US Government.

Given how the OBM described the bonds (quoted above), that should comfort absolutely no one…

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

It was not expected to happen until no sooner than 2016 but Social Security will pay out more this year than it takes in.

This year, the system will pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes, an important threshold it was not expected to cross until at least 2016, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The New York Times

Officials say that Social Security has 2.5 Trillion dollars in the “trust” fund so they can pay retirees (and the myriad of others who have become eligible over the years) for some years to come.

The problem is, there is no real trust fund. A trust fund would be a place where they put the money and can get to it when they need it. Instead, Social Security is forced to buy government bonds and the money it collects goes into the general fund where politicians, instead of saving it for Social Security (as it was intended) spend it on other things.

We have no money in the bank for when the government bonds are cashed. The government paper is not worth the ink that is on it because we have no money to honor the commitment.

We borrow a lot of money from other countries to pay our debt and the interest on the debt is astronomical.

There is no way that government will be able to honor the commitment it made because it did not keep our money safe like it was supposed to. If the money had been put away we would be in good shape.

So if they are going to be collecting money for the next four years to pay for health care what are the odds that they will spend it one something else and there will be no money when it comes time to deliver Christmas to all the serfs?

Never surrender, never submit.

The Democrats knew they would catch hell during this break and so far there have been quite a few encounters with constituents that have gotten loud. None of them have gotten out of control and there was no violence like there is when liberal goons are involved. These meetings included Democrats and Republicans who were present to express their dissatisfaction with the health care overhaul.

The Democrats in office, the DNC, and the media wing of their party have been portraying the protesters as right wing extremists who are hell bent on destroying Obama. No matter what the make up of the audience is, it will be labeled as a bunch of conservatives and members of the vast right wing conspiracy. Even though people at the meetings describe themselves as Democrats, they are still identified as conservatives and helps to brand them as supremacists.

Senator Boxer said that the groups are well dressed people as if ordinary citizens cannot dress nicely. Nancy Pelosi said that the protesters are carrying swastikas and other offensive items (I challenge her to find such a thing). This is a lie and is designed to make it look like the Republicans or the conservatives are the problem.

The groups are not the right wing, they are Americans from all backgrounds and ideologies who do not believe in what is happening. The Democrats want you to believe they are united and it is the right holding things up. Keep this in mind, they have enough votes to pass it without one Republican vote. The problem is many Democrats do not want to vote for it because they are worried about reelection. The Dems are blaming this on the right to take the focus off their own members who oppose it.

As for the unruly mobs that the Democrats want you to think are involved, look at any video and you see people who are angry and talking out of turn and over each other but there is no violence. The people are only expressing themselves and are really letting their representatives have it when they hear a lie, or as the White House calls it, something fishy.

Harry Reid is not happy at all and says these protesters are trying to sabotage the Democratic process:

The Senate’s most powerful Democrat on Thursday scolded health care protesters dogging his party’s lawmakers at local meetings, arguing that some critics on the political right have run out of ideas—and ditched their civic manners. Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada accused the protesters of trying to “sabotage” the democratic process. Breitbart

Isn’t it amazing how when Democrats are out protesting, damaging property and attacking people they are being patriotic because they are dissenting but when people (identified as Republicans by Dems) are peacefully protesting the government’s actions they are “sabotaging” the Democratic process?

It is further amazing that Harry Reid would call people expressing their Constitutional rights as saboteurs. Not only are these folks exercising their right to free speech, they are also exercising their right to peaceably assemble. Harry Reid thinks this is getting in the way of progress. You read that right, a US Senator thinks that people who exercise their Constitutional rights are saboteurs. Is it any wonder we hold these people in contempt?

Stop the ACLU has a video of some of these right wing radicals. It features a bunch of senior citizens at an AARP meeting. The AARP representative is trying to explain why government health care is so great and why the seniors should like it. When people start to express their dissatisfaction the person holding the meeting ends it and leaves. The seniors all said they were going to cancel their membership in AARP and I hope they do. The AARP is only out to make money. They do not care about seniors, they care about advancing liberal positions.

I urge all seniors who belong to the AARP to cancel your memberships and ask for a refund. Then consider joining organizations like the 60 Plus Association or the American Seniors Association. Both of them believe in limited government and ending oppressive taxes. They have your interests in mind.

Keep the heat on the members of Congress. Do not let them get away with the lies about the plan. They will say anything to get this passed so they can control your lives. Don’t let them get away with telling you how great they can do things. They can’t run a post office, they can’t run Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security, all of which are out of money or will be soon.

If you like going to the Department of Motor vehicles then you will love government health care. But keep in mind, if you think health care is expensive now, wait until it is free…

As for you seniors, keep giving them hell and then vote them out of office before they pass a health care bill that will kill you off.