Socrates

I begin things and have problems finishing them at times.

But I think that this community as well as those local communities wherein we reside should get back to basics and see if we can work things out!

Because nothing seems to be working out as far as our nation is concerned I feel that we should get back to basics. What do words 'mean'?

I will consider words and phrases in my deliberations such as:

Entitlements

Class

Class warfare

Freedom

Liberty

Fraternity (Sorority?)

Earnings

These are just some of the words that come off the web and cable TV like diarrhea falls from the bottoms of those dying of dysentery.

When McConnell talks about freedom all I see is one of those mean bankers in a Capra flick with a permanent sneer attempting to keep what is his; what he thinks he has earned.

When Canter speaks about entitlements, all I see is a queue in front of his Congressional office consisting of past members of banking and corporate interests who were once employees of the SEC or the DOD or the Families for Christ Foundation or a member of his family who is down and out due to a coke deal gone bad or....

When Boehner speaks of liberty I usually see a nice bar where girls show their racks whilst (forgive me Genghis) lobbyists pretend to drink AND ask for favors.

I would like to discuss some of these terms; some of these phrases and see if I can discover what the difference is in reception amongst (there I go again Genghis) the masses.

So we shall begin this lecture series with the question:

WHAT EXACTLY IS AN ENTITLEMENT?

September 30^th 2008:

THE ERA OF THE GOLDEN PARACHUTE IS OVER.!

No it's not! Hahahahahah

December 2008; Merril Lynch Golden Parachute.

If you happen to like cartoons, take a look at this string of cells.

To be fair, when the MSM reports there have been absolutely no prosecutions of big bad capitalists relating to the end of Western Civilization as we know it; do not forget Bernie!

Bernie is in prison until Jesus arrives per the Armageddon or a repub prez pardons him.

And the sins of the father....

I also note that by September of 2011:

Three former Merrill Lynch executives were charged with conspiracy yesterday for allegedly helping Enron Corp. inflate earnings with a loan disguised as a sale of Nigerian barges.

Daniel Bayly, Robert Furst and James Brown became the first Wall Street bankers to be hit with criminal charges in the scandal that brought down the energy company.

The criminal charges do not involve Merrill Lynch, which reached a side agreement that would allow the brokerage to avoid any corporate culpability if it implements "a series of sweeping reforms" to improve the integrity of its transactions with clients and third parties.

The three men were charged with conspiracy to commit fraud and falsifying books and records.

Brown also was charged with obstruction and lying to a grand jury investigating the scandal.

All three pleaded not guilty during a court appearance yesterday afternoon and each was freed on $100,000 bond each and ordered to surrender his passport.

So something is happening in September of 2011.

We might as well turn to other 'entitlements'.

Social Security began in 1935 much to the chagrin of all those who had their own golden parachutes.

If you put in your 25 or 35 or 50 years of service, you get a pension.

There are some exceptions of course.

Were you working off the books as they say?

Were you selling weed and not reporting your 'earnings'?

The idea was that for every dollar earned as a wage earner, you paid into a fund and your employer paid into a fund as part of your wages.

Your pension would be determined by the amount of monies you had 'earned' over a specific period and how much of your wages were deposited by you and your employer(s) over that period.

There was no '20 year' requisite regarding your employment by one single employer.

It was simple.

Keep it simple stupid.

It was harder to keep track of all of this 80 years ago, but with Intel and such, it is much easier.

Supposedly.

So the repubs would label all of this as ENTITLEMENTS!

What the fuck are they talking about?

This is like saying that welfare queens are entitled to receive monies for procreation (which would lead to a Santorum argument somewhere along the line).

Or it would be like saying that separate public contracts with government employees were just welfare disguised?

Or it would be like saying that the lowly employee is an idiot; fuck the promises of the upper classes!

Entitlement.

I really believe that most arguments regarding entitlements have to do with contract law.

What the repubs wish to do is this:

All the lower classes must accede to renegotiation of previous contracts.

These previous contracts involve contracts between the Government of the United States of America and the lowly worker.

These previous contracts involve contracts between the Federal Governments and the State Governments with regard to previous employment.

But contracts involving the upper classes; contracts involving top management and corporations shall remain sacrosanct.

How else shall we get through this mess? They ask.

I mean, of course the upper classes will never allow reformation of their contracts.

Of course, the members of the upper corporate classes will not allow an audit concerning discrepancies between their contractual promises and the results of their actions.

Chthonic will underline the sins of our current President.

I do not blame him for doing so.

Pudge luntz spends his entire life attempting to frame the issue.

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2011/October/Political-Pollster-Frank-Luntz-Gives-2012-Predictions/

Pudge Luntz will ask questions about entitlements that will split the vote.

He is a genius even though he looks like Gomer on a 1960's sitcom.

But Pudge knows that he must split the vote amongst the illiterate just as the repub party knows that they must split the vote of the illiterate or they would evaporate into thin air as they did in the 1930's.

ENTITLEMENTS

An entitlement is a guarantee of access to benefits based on established rights or by legislation. A "right" is itself an entitlement associated with a moral or social principle, such that an "entitlement" is a provision made in accordance with legal framework of a society. Typically, entitlements are laws based on concepts of principle ("rights") which are themselves based in concepts of social equality or enfranchisement.

No it does not.

If I am inducted per application into the NYPD in 1980 and I proceed to perform my duties for thirty years; I am entitled to certain benefits contained in the contracts I signed in 1980.

I signed a contract.

I do not care if the contract had been created by unions and government.

I do not care if the contract had been created by politicians.

I do not care if the contract had been negotiated by aliens.

There should be no dispute regarding those benefits.

I put in my 30 years and that is that.

Now, inflationary provisions in those contracts may be disputed.

And 'add-ons' may be disputed.

But damn, I signed a contract as soon as I 'signed on'.

Hell, these CEO's put in their 30 months and we are not to dispute their parachutes?

WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT?

What is an entitlement?

An entitlement should be defined as a pension earned over decades by the employee.

If you change the terms of that pension earned; you need the approval of the employee who signed on.

And if you wish to dispute the language of the legislation that ended up as Social Security; you cannot change that legislation by some sort of fascist fiat.

Parachutes should be disregarded in all cases.

Pudge Luntz

I believe that if we ignore the pudge luntzes of this world; or at least provide good reasons to ignore these devils; we might go far to provide the proper information to the masses that might free them from the lies present in our current system of contract law!

Entitlements might be defined in any manner that suits the master of rhetoric.

But it seems that there is more truth in a contract signed by an new employee than a 'reformed k' designed by fascists like cantor or mcconell or boehner or whatever.

We are not free and we have never been free.

I am just discussing the freedom to contract.

And there is no freedom to contract except among the upper classes.

The same as it was five hundred years ago.

the end