On the second day, the fifty original members of O.U.T.R.A.G.E. were joined by approximately fifty more individuals on-screen. Again, these were all 'common' citizens, some dressed in the clothing or uniforms they wear to work (a deliberate attempt to demonstrate their commonality).
Behind the group was an electronic readerboard sign, typical of those seen on storefronts and bars across America. In glaring red electronically-displayed digital numbers and letters, the results of yesterday's first informal vote were posted:
ARTICLE 1. RESOLUTION: TAKE THE 'CON' OUT OF CONGRESS
TOTAL NUMBER OF VOTES CAST: 703,489
NUMBER OF "YEA" VOTES: 644,994
NUMBER OF "NAY" VOTES: 58,495
The first resolution had passed by an overwhelming majority of more than 90%! O.U.T.R.A.G.E. leaders had every reason to be ecstatic. What could have been a disasterous judgement against their murderous revolution, instead had proven to be what perhaps most United States citizens really wanted in a democracy: representation by, for, and of the people. While it would be premature to call this a "mandate", most O.U.T.R.A.G.E. members saw it as a positive sign. This first vote, of course, was also largely made up of voters who had been part of the O.U.T.R.A.G.E. conspiracy.
Of course, there were millions of Americans who were not even aware of the O.U.T.R.A.G.E. project yet. Millions were still searching through mountains of rubble, trying to locate bodies of politicians, movie stars, chief executive officers, investment brokers, government bureaucrats, and independent millionaires who had been the victims of this horror. To convince these rescuers that their intent was the only appropriate thing to do would be an exhaustive challenge. Millions more would be abhorred by the brutality and wickedness of wht had happened.
Now, this first resolution would be crafted into a legal document before being voted on at a later date and ratified as a formal addendum to the U.S. Constitution. All legal procedure would still be necessary to make this change to the laws of the land; the only difference was that this time decisions would be made by popular vote, by the people - instead of by a group of politicians whose self-interests took precedence over the general interests of the citizenry. This time, voting would not be influenced by special interest groups, lobbyists, wealthy individuals, or big business. While this was mostly cosmetic in nature, it was a procedure that (hopefully) would ultimately involve millions of citizens in the political process while it also allowed time for the reformation and revitalization of a new democratic representation and the re-establishment of a central federal government.
From the crowd of over a hundred people, a large, husky man dressed in blue jeans, a plaid work shirt, and a bright yellow hard hard, came forward. "My name is Dennis," he announced brusquely, "I'm from Minnesota, and I would like to submit the next resolution for the voters' consideration." His concern was Social Security, he explained, and he felt the program was in need of an overhaul. "I don't know what the original intent was," he admitted, "but here's how I see it: Social Security should be an insurance policy against poverty. Instead, for many Americans, it's become additional income that affords them to live out their golden years in luxury. That's a waste of taxpayer dollars, and an expense this country can do without. Why should people who are millionaires expect to get a Social Security check just because they've turned 65? Yeah, I know the argument: I paid into it all these years, I deserve to get something back. Well, that's a crock of shit. We all pay car insurance for years, hoping we never have to file a claim. If you're fortunate enough to never have an accident, do you ask your car insurance company to give back your premiums? No! That's how insurance works: premiums are collected and claims are paid. Hopefully, the amount of the claims paid is less than the amount of money paid by all premium holders. That leaves a surplus - or profit - for the insurance companies. Social Security should be managed the same way. We all pay our premiums during all the years we're gainfully employed. If, at the end of our career, we're fortunate enough to have a few bucks in the bank, we should not expect to get a Social Security check. This has been an issue our cowardly politicians have always been afraid of; all because they didn't want to piss off the huge block of senior citizen voters. Now we've killed off those bastards; now it's time to make changes in the way Social Security is administered so that only those who need it are entitled to it."
Dennis then introduced the "Second Article for A New America".
ARTICLE II. RESOLUTION: MODIFY SOCIAL SECURITY TO ENSURE MORE SOCIAL EQUALITY
"Social Security has been called an insurance program, but it's actually America's biggest entitlement. The program needs to be modified so that only those who need it are entitled to receive it. This would certainly continue to include citizens of any age who might be disabled, unable to work, or permanently ill. It should absolutely include those individuals who - as they reach 'retirement age', need an income adequate on which to live. Social Security benefits should specifically exclude those individuals who - as they reach 'retirement age', DON'T need such financial assistance. If they've been fortunate enough to save some of their money, make prudent investments, acquire substantial assets, and provide for themselves financially, they should be denied Social Security benefits until such a time their circumstances change.
Social Security funds are being depleted because of the sheer greed of millions oof Americans who gleefully, carelessly collect it so they don't have to dip into their own resources. This allows them to accumulate more wealth, at taxpayers' expense, and still live in luxurious homes, drive luxurious cars, take luxurious vacations, and eat in luxurious restaurants. If both husband and wife are retired and collecting Social Security beneifts, they might be receiving several thousands of dollars a month with which to supplement their basic income. That's not necessary. It's not right. And it's not moral.
Only at such a time that a senior citizen finds himself to be destitute should (s)he be entitled to Social Security benefits. Specific criteria must apply in order to receive Social Security beneifts:
1. Recipient must be unable to be gainfully employed;
2. Recipient must prove that (s)he has no other sources of income (such as retirement pensions, investment income, etc.);
3. Recipient must have no savings or financial accumulations of any kind;
4. Recipient must have no legitimate means of supporting themselves and being able to provide for basic living expenses;
5. Recipient is allowed to own one (1) permanent residence and one (1) used vehicle, in addition to basic household items or
furnishings, personal items such as clothing and jewelry, and other items of sentimental or historical value;
6. Insurance policies, savings accounts, and other financial instruments must be cashed in or "spent down" prior to being
eligible for Social Security beneifts.
The intent here is not to restrict benefits to those who are truly in need; the intent is to prevent those who don't need such assistance from getting it. This is one more example of how gluttony and selfishness has taken over our country.
Those who have been fortunate enough to accumulate sufficient wealth with which to sustain themselves in their golden years should be PROUD to be able to help those less fortunate by allowing them Social Security benefits into which they were able to contribute as they worked to build their fortunes.
Professional politicians, wealthy individuals, special interest groups such as AARP, insurance companies and investment brokers, and a host of governmental bureaucrats will shout this down as unfair, unconstitutional, or discriminatory. O.U.T.R.A.G.E. views it as a more equitable and socially responsible movement that will ensure future generations of elderly will be able to live in some semblance of humble security. Taking this entitlement away from those people who genuinely don't need it will save billions of dollars that can be redirected to those who genuinely do need help.
Almost assuredly, there will be consternation, conflict and combat over this issue. It is, however, an imperative item that needs to be addressed while Social Security is still solvent and while there is time to modify it for the betterment of our society and future generations. As part of my resolution, I am also suggesting that a special committee be established to explore all aspects of this important issue, and return with viable recommendations for the implementation of such modification. This committee needs to be made up of laymen from the general citizenry. "Experts" from government bureaucracies, professional politicians, special interest groups, and lobbying entitites should not be invited to participate.
The most difficult challenge facing my resolution will be the changing of public perception and opinion. Social Security should not be perceived as an abolute "right" for all Americans. Social Security should be reserved ONLY for those whose circumstances - for whatever reason - require that they be provided with sufficient financial assistance. Of course, the most resistance will come from the wealthy, the powerful, and the greedy who think it's their right to suck off the government teat. Ironcially, these are the very same people who would prefer to deny assistance for a single mother with three children who works two minimum-wage jobs just to try to make ends meet, a drug addict who has suffered irreparable brain damage, or a former middle-management executive who is now homeless.
O.U.T.R.A.G.E. is not a collection of 'bleeding heart liberals' - we intend to be an organization that will grow into a new national consciousness and an improved national conscience. We believe the human spirit is inherently good, but Americans have become outrageously self-centered, greedy and unconcerned about their fellow man. I believe one of our ultimate objectives is to change to American psyche from one of "All for One, Me" to one of "We're all in this together". That is not to say that we reward debauchery, irresponsible conduct, or repeatedly offensive behavior. However, we firmly advocate that this nation must return to a deep commitment of compassion, unity, and - yes - love for every single citizen of the world.
Please use the voting devices that have provided to you. Your 'Yea" or "Nay" vote will be duly recorded, and results of the first informal vote on this issue will be announced tomorrow at the start of our third meeting. I hope to see all of you here at 4:55 P.M. EST. Please invite others to join you and participate in this revolutionary movement. Thank you."
With that, the screen once again faded to black.
Behind the group was an electronic readerboard sign, typical of those seen on storefronts and bars across America. In glaring red electronically-displayed digital numbers and letters, the results of yesterday's first informal vote were posted:
ARTICLE 1. RESOLUTION: TAKE THE 'CON' OUT OF CONGRESS
TOTAL NUMBER OF VOTES CAST: 703,489
NUMBER OF "YEA" VOTES: 644,994
NUMBER OF "NAY" VOTES: 58,495
The first resolution had passed by an overwhelming majority of more than 90%! O.U.T.R.A.G.E. leaders had every reason to be ecstatic. What could have been a disasterous judgement against their murderous revolution, instead had proven to be what perhaps most United States citizens really wanted in a democracy: representation by, for, and of the people. While it would be premature to call this a "mandate", most O.U.T.R.A.G.E. members saw it as a positive sign. This first vote, of course, was also largely made up of voters who had been part of the O.U.T.R.A.G.E. conspiracy.
Of course, there were millions of Americans who were not even aware of the O.U.T.R.A.G.E. project yet. Millions were still searching through mountains of rubble, trying to locate bodies of politicians, movie stars, chief executive officers, investment brokers, government bureaucrats, and independent millionaires who had been the victims of this horror. To convince these rescuers that their intent was the only appropriate thing to do would be an exhaustive challenge. Millions more would be abhorred by the brutality and wickedness of wht had happened.
Now, this first resolution would be crafted into a legal document before being voted on at a later date and ratified as a formal addendum to the U.S. Constitution. All legal procedure would still be necessary to make this change to the laws of the land; the only difference was that this time decisions would be made by popular vote, by the people - instead of by a group of politicians whose self-interests took precedence over the general interests of the citizenry. This time, voting would not be influenced by special interest groups, lobbyists, wealthy individuals, or big business. While this was mostly cosmetic in nature, it was a procedure that (hopefully) would ultimately involve millions of citizens in the political process while it also allowed time for the reformation and revitalization of a new democratic representation and the re-establishment of a central federal government.
From the crowd of over a hundred people, a large, husky man dressed in blue jeans, a plaid work shirt, and a bright yellow hard hard, came forward. "My name is Dennis," he announced brusquely, "I'm from Minnesota, and I would like to submit the next resolution for the voters' consideration." His concern was Social Security, he explained, and he felt the program was in need of an overhaul. "I don't know what the original intent was," he admitted, "but here's how I see it: Social Security should be an insurance policy against poverty. Instead, for many Americans, it's become additional income that affords them to live out their golden years in luxury. That's a waste of taxpayer dollars, and an expense this country can do without. Why should people who are millionaires expect to get a Social Security check just because they've turned 65? Yeah, I know the argument: I paid into it all these years, I deserve to get something back. Well, that's a crock of shit. We all pay car insurance for years, hoping we never have to file a claim. If you're fortunate enough to never have an accident, do you ask your car insurance company to give back your premiums? No! That's how insurance works: premiums are collected and claims are paid. Hopefully, the amount of the claims paid is less than the amount of money paid by all premium holders. That leaves a surplus - or profit - for the insurance companies. Social Security should be managed the same way. We all pay our premiums during all the years we're gainfully employed. If, at the end of our career, we're fortunate enough to have a few bucks in the bank, we should not expect to get a Social Security check. This has been an issue our cowardly politicians have always been afraid of; all because they didn't want to piss off the huge block of senior citizen voters. Now we've killed off those bastards; now it's time to make changes in the way Social Security is administered so that only those who need it are entitled to it."
Dennis then introduced the "Second Article for A New America".
ARTICLE II. RESOLUTION: MODIFY SOCIAL SECURITY TO ENSURE MORE SOCIAL EQUALITY
"Social Security has been called an insurance program, but it's actually America's biggest entitlement. The program needs to be modified so that only those who need it are entitled to receive it. This would certainly continue to include citizens of any age who might be disabled, unable to work, or permanently ill. It should absolutely include those individuals who - as they reach 'retirement age', need an income adequate on which to live. Social Security benefits should specifically exclude those individuals who - as they reach 'retirement age', DON'T need such financial assistance. If they've been fortunate enough to save some of their money, make prudent investments, acquire substantial assets, and provide for themselves financially, they should be denied Social Security benefits until such a time their circumstances change.
Social Security funds are being depleted because of the sheer greed of millions oof Americans who gleefully, carelessly collect it so they don't have to dip into their own resources. This allows them to accumulate more wealth, at taxpayers' expense, and still live in luxurious homes, drive luxurious cars, take luxurious vacations, and eat in luxurious restaurants. If both husband and wife are retired and collecting Social Security beneifts, they might be receiving several thousands of dollars a month with which to supplement their basic income. That's not necessary. It's not right. And it's not moral.
Only at such a time that a senior citizen finds himself to be destitute should (s)he be entitled to Social Security benefits. Specific criteria must apply in order to receive Social Security beneifts:
1. Recipient must be unable to be gainfully employed;
2. Recipient must prove that (s)he has no other sources of income (such as retirement pensions, investment income, etc.);
3. Recipient must have no savings or financial accumulations of any kind;
4. Recipient must have no legitimate means of supporting themselves and being able to provide for basic living expenses;
5. Recipient is allowed to own one (1) permanent residence and one (1) used vehicle, in addition to basic household items or
furnishings, personal items such as clothing and jewelry, and other items of sentimental or historical value;
6. Insurance policies, savings accounts, and other financial instruments must be cashed in or "spent down" prior to being
eligible for Social Security beneifts.
The intent here is not to restrict benefits to those who are truly in need; the intent is to prevent those who don't need such assistance from getting it. This is one more example of how gluttony and selfishness has taken over our country.
Those who have been fortunate enough to accumulate sufficient wealth with which to sustain themselves in their golden years should be PROUD to be able to help those less fortunate by allowing them Social Security benefits into which they were able to contribute as they worked to build their fortunes.
Professional politicians, wealthy individuals, special interest groups such as AARP, insurance companies and investment brokers, and a host of governmental bureaucrats will shout this down as unfair, unconstitutional, or discriminatory. O.U.T.R.A.G.E. views it as a more equitable and socially responsible movement that will ensure future generations of elderly will be able to live in some semblance of humble security. Taking this entitlement away from those people who genuinely don't need it will save billions of dollars that can be redirected to those who genuinely do need help.
Almost assuredly, there will be consternation, conflict and combat over this issue. It is, however, an imperative item that needs to be addressed while Social Security is still solvent and while there is time to modify it for the betterment of our society and future generations. As part of my resolution, I am also suggesting that a special committee be established to explore all aspects of this important issue, and return with viable recommendations for the implementation of such modification. This committee needs to be made up of laymen from the general citizenry. "Experts" from government bureaucracies, professional politicians, special interest groups, and lobbying entitites should not be invited to participate.
The most difficult challenge facing my resolution will be the changing of public perception and opinion. Social Security should not be perceived as an abolute "right" for all Americans. Social Security should be reserved ONLY for those whose circumstances - for whatever reason - require that they be provided with sufficient financial assistance. Of course, the most resistance will come from the wealthy, the powerful, and the greedy who think it's their right to suck off the government teat. Ironcially, these are the very same people who would prefer to deny assistance for a single mother with three children who works two minimum-wage jobs just to try to make ends meet, a drug addict who has suffered irreparable brain damage, or a former middle-management executive who is now homeless.
O.U.T.R.A.G.E. is not a collection of 'bleeding heart liberals' - we intend to be an organization that will grow into a new national consciousness and an improved national conscience. We believe the human spirit is inherently good, but Americans have become outrageously self-centered, greedy and unconcerned about their fellow man. I believe one of our ultimate objectives is to change to American psyche from one of "All for One, Me" to one of "We're all in this together". That is not to say that we reward debauchery, irresponsible conduct, or repeatedly offensive behavior. However, we firmly advocate that this nation must return to a deep commitment of compassion, unity, and - yes - love for every single citizen of the world.
Please use the voting devices that have provided to you. Your 'Yea" or "Nay" vote will be duly recorded, and results of the first informal vote on this issue will be announced tomorrow at the start of our third meeting. I hope to see all of you here at 4:55 P.M. EST. Please invite others to join you and participate in this revolutionary movement. Thank you."
With that, the screen once again faded to black.
posted by Bushwacker! at 6:55 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home