How The U.S. Will Become a 3rd World Country (Part 2)

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Ron Hera of Hera Research

How the U.S. Will Become a 3rd World Country (Part 2) (Part 1 found here)

The United States is quickly coming to resemble a post industrial neo-3rd-world country.  Unemployment, lack of economic opportunity, falling real wages and household incomes, growing poverty and increasing concentration of wealth are major trends in the U.S. today.  Behind these growing problems are monetary inflation created by the Federal Reserve’s monetary policies, federal government deficit spending and the dominant influence of “too big to fail” banks and large corporations in Washington D.C., which has altered the direction of law in the United States.  To make matters worse, the U.S. government faces a historic fiscal crisis.

High unemployment, lack of economic opportunity, low wages, widespread poverty, extreme concentration of wealth, unsustainable government debt, control of the government by international banks and multinational corporations, weak rule of law and counterproductive policies are defining characteristics of 3rd world countries.  Other factors include poor public health, nutrition and education, as well as lack of infrastructure—factors that deteriorate rapidly in a failing economy.

Apparently ineffective regulation and relatively little law enforcement action by the federal government in the wake of the sub-prime mortgage meltdown resulted in widespread speculation that special interests had taken priority over the rule of law.  Critics have also charged that the federal government’s policies threaten to eliminate what remains of the American middle class.

Accelerating Concentration of Wealth

In response to the economic downturn that began in 2007 and the start of the financial crisis in 2008, the U.S. federal government and the Federal Reserve resorted to a radically inflationary policy intended to save banks and to shepherd the U.S. economy through a recession.  Instead, radically inflationary policies greatly increased the concentration of wealth.

Under ordinary circumstances, monetary inflation has the effect of redistributing wealth in favor of those who receive newly created money first.  The value of money is reduced as a function of the number of currency units in the economy but recipients of newly created money can spend it before it loses value.  In a declining economy, however, the wealth redistribution effects of inflation are magnified.

When the Federal Reserve or the federal government supports banks and financial markets through liquidity injections, bailouts, asset purchases, quantitative easing, etc., the lion’s share of financial support, i.e., newly created money, is captured by the largest financial institutions and by the wealthiest 1% of Americans.  Money printing skews the distribution of money over the economy while the value of money, i.e., the purchasing power of wages and savings, is reduced.  The overall effect is a wealth transfer from proverbial Main Street to literal Wall Street.

Looming Fiscal Crisis

U.S. government debt and deficit spending have markedly accelerated over the past decade.  For example, The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was created and the U.S. military grew to 3 million active duty and reserve personnel, not including contractors.  Since 2001, the U.S. spent approximately $1 trillion on military expansion while the total cost of the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq has been estimated to exceed $3.7 trillion.

Although the U.S. federal government remains in denial, the Congressional debt ceiling debate and subsequent U.S. credit rating downgrade on August 5, 2011 were only the tip of the iceberg.  In fact, the United States faces a historic fiscal crisis.

As of 2012, the majority of new federal government debt will stem from interest on existing debt.  Treasury bond issues totaled $2.55 trillion in 2010, roughly 2x the federal budget deficit of $1.3 trillion.  Artificially low U.S. Treasury bond yields, created by the Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing (QE1 and QE2) programs and by its current “Operation Twist,” only slow the rate at which the federal debt balloons.

The U.S. federal government’s fast growing debt is $14.94 trillion, approximately 100% of GDP.  Additionally, future liabilities total $66.6 trillion based on generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP accounting) and using official data from the Medicare and Social Security annual reports and from the audited financial report of the federal government.

1.    Medicare: $24.8 trillion
2.    Social Security: $21.4 trillion
3.    Federal debt: $10.2 trillion* (not including intra-governmental obligations)
4.    State, local government obligations: $5.2 trillion
5.    Military retirement/disability benefits: $3.6 trillion
6.    Federal employee retirement benefits: $2 trillion

The eventual insolvency of the U.S. federal government cannot be averted through any combination of taxes, budget cuts or realistic GDP growth.  Inflationary policies, i.e., increasing deficit spending by the federal government and debt monetization by the Federal Reserve, would devalue the U.S. dollar and potentially trigger a hyperinflationary collapse of the currency.  To stave off the inevitable, interim measures might include tax increases, exchange controls, nationalization of pension funds or other measures similar to those taken in 3rd world countries.

Dominant Corporate Influence

In a 2009 radio interview on Elmhurst, Illinois’ WJJG 1530 AM, Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) explained that “…the banks—hard to believe in a time when we’re facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created—are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill.  And they frankly own the place.”  Senator Durbin was unequivocal in saying that the federal government of the United States is controlled by banks.  Simon Johnson, former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), had reached the same conclusion one month earlier in his widely read article The Quiet Coup.  Johnson explained that the finance industry had effectively captured the U.S. government, a state of affairs typical of 3rd world countries.

Corporate influence over the political process, as well as over the tax and regulatory policies of the United States, is at an all time high.  The federal government is the largest single customer in the U.S. economy and, through taxation or regulation, the government can grant or deny market access to private companies and can either prevent or mandate the consumption of their products and services.  As a result, virtually every large corporation in the United States seeks to win the government’s business and to steer government tax policies and regulations in their favor.  Naturally, politicians who accede to the wishes of particular corporations are given campaign funds to ensure their reelection.  In the past decade, the amount of money spent on lobbying has more than doubled and there are currently 24 lobbyists for every 1 member of Congress.

The interdependence of elected officials and the largest U.S. corporations reached a new high with the 2008 bank bailouts.  The influence of private corporations and de facto industrial cartels (comprising the largest corporations in each major industry) over tax and regulatory policies creates significant economic distortions that ultimately compromise the sustainability and the stability of the economy.  Ideally, the government would be an impartial referee, rather than an active business partner that overwhelmingly favors large businesses over small businesses, despite the fact that small businesses account for the vast majority of American jobs.

Impact on the Rule of Law

Corruption, cronyism and weak rule of law are typical of 3rd world countries.  The United States exhibits a clear corporate influence over elections and legislation and, arguably, relatively little law enforcement action where large, legally well-equipped corporations are concerned.  Reports of so-called crony capitalism have appeared in the U.S. news media, but the term “corruption” has been avoided, along with discussion of fundamental reforms.

A cursory examination of legal developments over roughly the past decade evidences a pattern in which U.S. federal law systematically favors the largest financial institutions, as well as a paradigm in which financial institutions heavily influence both the regulations that putatively govern their activities and the laws that apply to consumers of their products and services.  The financial crisis that began in 2008 and the subsequent response of the federal government appear to follow logically from prior legislative events:

  1. 1999 Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLB).  The Act repealed key provisions of the Banking Act of 1933, commonly known as the Glass–Steagall Act.  In the aftermath of the Great Depression, the Glass–Steagall Act prevented depository institutions from engaging in high risk financial speculation.
  2. 2000 The Commodity Futures Modernization Act (CFMA).  The Act deregulated over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives, such as credit default swaps, referred to by Warren Buffett as “financial weapons of mass destruction.”  OTC derivatives were at the heart of the financial crisis that began in 2008 and are the root cause of the “too big to fail” doctrine.  The Act preempted state gaming laws that had prevented banks from speculating in OTC derivatives with no connection to underlying assets.
  3. 2001 USA PATRIOT Act.  The financial provisions of the Act allow banks to collect additional financial information about account holders, for example, linking business accounts to the personal financial records of business owners, thus weakening both financial privacy and the corporate veil.  The Act enhances the ability of creditors to collect and allows federal authorities to monitor financial transactions and to obtain financial records without a subpoena.
  4. 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA).  The Act, which was sponsored by banks and credit card companies, effectively eliminated the concept of a “fresh start” by allowing banks and credit card companies to engage in collections activities, in effect, forever.  As a result, small business owners who end in bankruptcy are less likely to ever start another business.  The Act places banks in front of bankruptcy courts, creates liabilities for bankruptcy attorneys and contains many widely criticized, anti-consumer provisions.
  5. 2008 Emergency Economic Stabilization Act.  The Act, commonly referred to as a “bank bailout,” authorized the United States Secretary of the Treasury to spend $700 billion to purchase distressed assets, especially mortgage-backed securities (MBS).  Instead, the funds were given to foreign and domestic banks to offset their risky MBS, OTC derivatives and other losses.  The bank bailout set a precedent of socializing losses but keeping gains private.  The Act effectively bound the fate of the U.S. Treasury to that of the largest U.S. financial institutions.
  6. 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.  The Supreme Court of the United States held that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment, overruling prior case law and guaranteeing the ability of corporations to influence elections without meaningful restrictions.  The Court’s decision gave carte blanche to corporations to influence elections, legitimized the interdependence of elected officials and large corporations and created a precedent under which the rights of corporations supersede those of citizens.
  7. 2010 The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.  The Act failed to restore critical provisions of the Glass–Steagall Act, significantly regulate OTC derivatives, break up “too big to fail” banks, prevent another financial crisis and prevent further bailouts.  The Act created a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but did not repeal any provision of BAPCPA or restore the financial privacy of U.S. citizens removed by the USA PATRIOT Act.  The Act failed to provide adequate funding to the government’s watchdogs, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), potentially hobbling enforcement.  The Act has also been criticized for the burden it places on smaller competitors in the financial sector, which could ultimately result in an increased concentration of financial power in “too big to fail” banks.

Critics have alleged that, underlying the sub-prime mortgage meltdown that triggered the financial crisis in 2008 was rampant fraud.  Fraud has been alleged at virtually every level from the assessment of property values and credit risk; to the loans themselves and to their securitization as MBS assets; to the ratings of MBS assets as AAA; to hedging or betting against MBS assets in the OTC derivatives market (perhaps including financial firms allegedly betting against MBS assets that they themselves created and sold to clients as AAA assets).  After the crisis, a seeming pattern of fraud continued apparently unabated in the robo-signing foreclosure scandal where documents submitted to courts were falsified.  Despite an avalanche of alleged crimes under existing federal law, no firm or individual of any significance in the financial crisis has yet been prosecuted.

President Barack Obama said in October 2011 that the mortgage finance practices leading to the economic meltdown were “immoral, inappropriate and reckless … but not necessarily illegal.”  Since fraud is, in fact, illegal, critics claim that the U.S. federal government has simply failed to enforce the law.  Adding fuel to the fire, the Solyndra loan scandal could be construed to suggest corruption at high levels and the MF Global debacle could be construed as indicative of weak regulation and law enforcement and even of questionable market integrity.

In theory, selective enforcement of the law risks the creation of two sets of laws: one for big banks and corporations, and for their executives, i.e., those with connections in Washington D.C. or on Wall Street, and one for everyone else.  Among other things, failure to enforce the law could create an environment in which crime pays, but, for ordinary citizens, hard work, prudent financial decision making, saving and investing for the long term do not.

More than any other aspect of America’s progression towards 3rd world status, the federal government’s low level of law enforcement action where “too big to fail” banks are concerned is perhaps the most insidious because it raises questions of legitimacy and of the social contract.  A financial and legal system of moral hazard implies that victims face double jeopardy while they are deprived of legal recourse, i.e., those allegedly defrauded might face inflation and tax burdens stemming from preferential treatment of favored corporations or from further bailouts.

Destructive Tax Policies

In the face of rising government debt, the rapidly shrinking American middle class is the primary target of the U.S. federal government’s tax policies.  The eventual extinction of the American middle class would be a key milestone along the road to 3rd world status.  Current U.S. tax policies favor the largest corporations and this is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.  Although tax increases exacerbate economic downturns, several tax options have been or are being discussed.  However, none of them are likely to be put in place.

•    Increasing taxes on corporate profits would result in job losses in the short term and would affect dividends and share prices in the stock market.  Lower dividends or share prices would affect pension funds, including government pension funds.
•    Increasing taxes on capital gains would impact the non-tax-exempt investments of the now retiring “baby boomer” generation and would reduce capital formation thus reducing investment in new businesses or business expansion and hampering job growth.
•    Increasing payroll taxes would cause companies to downsize resulting in job losses and would have a chilling effect on hiring.
•    A Value Added Tax (VAT) is impractical in the United States because countless special taxes already exist at all levels of the supply chain.  To prevent unpredictable, disruptive consequences, implementing a VAT would require years of study and comprehensive tax reform.
•    A national sales tax is undesirable because it would overlap and interfere with already existing state sales taxes, which are highly inconsistent across states.
•    Carbon taxes remain possible but they would encumber businesses and result in job losses or reduce hiring.

Chief among the remaining possibilities is the income tax but, according to the Tax Policy center at the Urban Institute, Brookings Institution, 46% of American households will pay no federal income tax in 2011.  The reasons include income tax exemptions for subsistence level income, dependents and nontaxable tax expenditures for senior citizens and low-income working families with children.

Assuming that big banks, multinational corporations and the wealthiest 1% of Americans remain off limits in terms of tax policy, the range of income taxed is likely to widen from the current tax on households earning more than $250,000 per year to progressively lower income levels.  In fact, the government’s intended revenue source is precisely what remains of the once much larger middle class: professionals, small business owners and dual income families in urban areas, etc.  These are the households that have managed to stay ahead of inflation, declining real wages and falling household incomes.

Among other things, U.S. tax policies will erode capital formation within the remnants of the middle class, which is the engine of small business creation and the source of most American jobs.  The eventual result will be a three-tier socioeconomic structure consisting of a super rich wealthy class, a much poorer working class and a massive, politically and financially disenfranchised underclass, similar to that of a 3rd world country.

Via Dolorosa

The United States increasingly resembles a 3rd world country in terms of unemployment, lack of economic opportunity, falling wages, growing poverty and concentration of wealth, government debt, corporate influence over government and weakening rule of law.  Federal Reserve monetary policies and federal government economic, regulatory and tax policies seem to favor the largest banks and corporations over the interests of small businesses or of the general population.  The potential elimination of the middle class could reshape the socioeconomic strata of American society in the image of a 3rd world country.  It seems only a matter of time before the devolution of the United States becomes more visible.  As the U.S. economy continues to decline, public health, nutrition and education, as well as the country’s infrastructure, will visibly deteriorate.  There is little evidence of political will or leadership for fundamental reforms.  All other things being equal, the U.S. will become a post industrial neo-3rd-world country by 2032.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
slewie the pi-rat's picture

try to protect yourselves, BiCheZ!

trav7777's picture

the more 3rd worlders we import, the more 3rd worldlike we become.  It's really as simple as that.

We have 25% of our population as 3rd world stock, we train our army docs in cities containing concentrations of these people in order that they can acquire training on gunshot and similar trauma wounds.

In integrated cities, they commit 90+% of the violent crime.   And we have a desert nomad war tribe controlling the media and finance.  Sounds like a recipe for success to me!

Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

And we have a desert nomad war tribe controlling the media and finance.

Can we always refer to them as such?

wanklord's picture

Why it is imperative to have a massive immigration into the United States now:

Ordinary Americans -primordially the ones of European ancestry- are the offspring failed generations. In fact, the states involved in eugenics during the first decades of the twentieth century did not strictly enforce the sterilization laws on those people (low IQs, retards, deformed individuals, disease carriers, imbeciles, etc). Their ancestors were labeled as undesirables in Europe and expelled from their native countries.

Consequently, the following generations are the best evidence that defective genes have been transmitted from one breed to the next and worst of all, the chances that their descendants’ DNA carrying a more complex sequence of these mutated genes are 100% guaranteed – they can be confirmed by performing scientific tests (i.e. bizarre mutations that will make these individuals being categorized as subhumans).

Besides that, never forget the following:

“It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind…Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927)


Therefore, the only way to sustain this unproductive generation of Americans (approximately 80% of the entire population of the United States) is by allowing a massive immigration of people from elsewhere in order to be assimilated into the system, so government can heavily tax these newcomers. America will need more than a hundred million foreigners to help paying the astronomical costs related to the care of these subhumans.

Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

Genes are strongest when they are combined with a variety.

Look at Halle Berry

She has many different types of genes in her blood.

Compare to the Rotheschildes; inbreds; dumb, evil fuckers.

Freddie's picture

She is an ugly skank who cannot act.  Get clue dumb-bass.

caerus's picture

i'm going to have to agree with mr lennon hendrix on this one...

Oh regional Indian's picture

If the survival of the US devolves to Halle Berry in 7 responses, surely the end or third worldness is near, yes? 




Green Leader's picture

Well before 2032, ORI, well before.

It's like a disease: I lived in Toledo Ohio for around two years. The place is a dump. As things get worse, everywhere is going to look like the 'rust belt'.

Paul Bogdanich's picture

The only qualm I have with this whole set of articles is how the US "will become" a third world country.  Like we are not there already.  Anyone who ever travels to Europe already knows we are a third world country with respect to living standards and health care and things like that.  Oh sure the roads will get worse over time but that's about it.   

duo's picture

I guess you've never been to the Paris suburbs (where the police are afraid to go).  That is scary.

The bottom 85% of the US makes less than the average person in Slovakia.  The "will become" part is that presently, the 1% can still walk among us.  When we reach true 3rd world status, the 1% will travel in armored cars between houses surrounded by razor wire, and the police won't help the 99% no matter how much you bribe them.

Look to South Africa for a glimpse of the future.

Are you kidding's picture

S.A. became black.  That won't happen here.  I believe the exact opposite would happen IF we have a complete breakdown.  Welfare will end, local leaders will arouse a sense of community and we'll go on as an agrarian society.  I don't know WHAT the inner city poor are going to do...but they won't make it far from the cities. 

trav7777's picture

certain cities are already planning ahead and gentrifying the bejeezus out of themselves.  consequently, crime trends show a move of activity into various suburbs, for example PG County in Maryland as DC redevelops itself.  A loss of black majority in that city will prove a major turning point if it can be achieved.

Bringin It's picture

duo - Are you American?  re. Paris suburbs where the police are afraid to go.  Large stretches of urban America are off limits to the police, unless they arrive en mass and armed to the teeth.  Ditto for parts of rural America.

Are you kidding's picture

Completely different circumstances honest...the rural folks just want to be (and demand to be) left alone.  They don't cost anyone anything...the inner citry's a fucking money pit.  We pour trillions into these "people".  For what?  To be villified, blamed, called names?  I say fuck them.

Spastica Rex's picture

Roads will get worse but BMW SUVs will get bigger and more rugged.

boiltherich's picture

Hey all of you dumbshit motherfuckers who think Freddie is a stupid jerk and his uncalled for statements about the beautiful Ms. Halle Barry were totally out of line, I agree with you but why do you then have to make yourselves look as juvenile and adolescent and flat out backwoods ignorant by trying to demean him as "gay."  You really need to grow up you know that?  All of you.  Freddie is a dipshit sure but when you use the word gay which represents MILLIONS and tens of millions of really good people in the pejorative light by comparing that skank of a person to us it is just the same as someone calling you a filthy breeder.  When you do this you expose yourself as no better than Freddie or even the worst Nazi troll the boards ever saw.

buyingsterling's picture

Get over yourself. This society sucks up to gays, big time. Or maybe it makes sense that there are anti-smoking billboards everywhere, while the vastly more dangerous homosexual activity is celebrated, and never warned against, except by 'bigots'. If it weren't a favored and protected lifestyle, the public would know more about STDs, rampant drug use, hundreds of sexual partners (on average, I'm sure you're really committed to your lover(s)), higher rates of sexual, physical and emotional abuse (especially among lesbians - WTF?) and _a significantly shorter life span_.

What other behavior/lifestyle that reduces lifespans by years is celebrated by society? Gang banging, I guess. Can't think of anything else off the top of my head.

Shirley Wilfahrt's picture

You would be a lot easier to understand if you took that dick out of your mouth.

trav7777's picture

yes, those hate facts are a bit too much to bear, ain't they?  You really cannot respond with anything other than an insult to them.

Every single thing he said was TRUE.  It is the literal, factual truth as anyone who's investigated gay health and lifestyle issues will attest.

But the MSM tells the truth, of course; they relentlessly pound how being gay is just as simple as flipping a switch.  Same nuclear family, same as you.  Everyone is the same, that's what the MSM says.  And of course this is one of the areas they tell the truth in, while they like 100% of the time on everything you DON'T want to believe.

mtomato2's picture

...methinks he protesteth too much...

boiltherich's picture

I think I do not protest enough, time for you all to understand that when you fuck with one part of the population you dispense with the sanctity of your own rights.  Idiots!

trav7777's picture

yes, because we can establish trends with only ONE datapoint.

Halle can't act, so what if she's decent looking, she's fuckin 3/4 white

Vic Vinegar's picture

Would you fuck that datapoint or not?

AldousHuxley's picture

No. She is manish with that short hairdo IMO. It would be like doing Prince...some asexual being.

Sokhmate's picture

There is no such things as Prince. Were you referring to this

mendolover's picture

Not with that rack!  IMO


boiltherich's picture

You are all pigs you know that?  I bet not one of you ever had a girlfriend that did not have an air valve in her lower back.  I have seen some major asshole mistreatment of women by dudes with tiny dicks and poor upbringing but you shock me that you are willing to post your misogyny on a public forum.  I thought you all were just ignorant or ill mannered above, but after reading the posts above I have come to the conclusion you need serious counseling.

Bringin It's picture

Agreed.  PC is a control mechanism.  I prefer freedom.

buyingsterling's picture

If you think the posts here show mental illness let me suggest you look in the mirror. Is anyone else reading this and thinking these people zre mentally ill? Did anyone mention that gays seem to be more likely, on average, to be control freaks? Maybe this is some evidence of that.

RafterManFMJ's picture

You are all pigs you know that?  I bet not one of you ever had a girlfriend that did not have an air valve in her lower back.  I have seen some major asshole mistreatment of women by dudes with tiny dicks and poor upbringing but you shock me that you are willing to post your misogyny on a public forum.  I thought you all were just ignorant or ill mannered above, but after reading the posts above I have come to the conclusion you need serious counseling.


Woot woot woot! Ignorant White Knight Alert!  My hilarity at your ignorance knows no bounds - hey pal wrap your limp mind around The Red Queen by Matt Ridley or start reading to get you up to speed; your feckless dickless gutless mindless slobbering support of what you think a pussy wants to hear is, frankly, hilarious.  I predict grinding celbicy for you, followed by a short marriage to a cow who first cuckolds you, then divorces you.

This assumes you are male. If you are female, hey, way to talk your book. Kudos.

trav7777's picture

lol that blog is hilarious; sounds like shit I say hahahahaha

Mudduckk's picture

Oh....the air valve is in her back. I'd been looking all over her front side for it. Thank you so much boil ;-p

Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

I know it wasn't the best example.  But genetic diversity does create stronger genes, whether it is someone with many European genes, or with some of this and some of that.....

We know we shouldn't marry our cousins, at least.

trav7777's picture

uh, just like a mule is stronger than a horse and donkey, huh?

Look, you really should avoid trying to make general applicability of things that maybe you think you heard somewhere.

tmosley's picture

Mulattoes aren't humanzees, fucking idiot.

How much more of your stupidity must you subject us to?

trav7777's picture

they might not be, but you sure as shit are

akak's picture

Stormfront Bitchez!


Are you kidding's picture

Diversity with GOOD genes is what you desire.  Just like with want to two BEST specimines...not the two worst.  In our modern societies...we're having the "two worst" specimines doing all the breeding.  Our "finest stock" isn't reproducing...apparently not wanting to bring a child into a world of filth created by the exponential breeding of the bottom feeders.  Get it?

i-dog's picture

Your point explained (with sounds and pictures, for the bottom feeders with reading difficulties):

FeralSerf's picture

Wealthy people don't need a lot of children to support them in their old age.  The poor, especially those without an economic safety net or pension, do.

topcallingtroll's picture

The poor have an economic safety net now called social security and medicare along with HUD and foodstamps.

People who cannot take care of themselves and their children should be sterilized. Our system which promotes the breeding of people who will never be anything but wards of the state is pushing us toward disaster.

FeralSerf's picture

That economic safety net is getting less safe every day.  It won't be very long before the SS benefits are substantially worthless from the effects of inflation.  The govt's inflation figures, which SS increases are bases on, are lies.

Medicare in its current form is a stealth wealth transfer program to take pension money that has been earned by the proles through payroll taxes and withholding and transfer it mostly to a bunch of crooked politicians, lobbyists, lawyers, bankers, big pharma and AMA members.  America has the most expensive, by far, health care system in the world, but it ranks poor in quality compared to most other industrialized countries.

Would you like some bureaucrat deciding whether you are to be sterilized because you're not fit to have children in his opinion?