From Munguin’s New Republic, the truth must be spoken!
Tag Archives: Donald Trump
Trumpettes

I’ve been looking for a club like this. Newly-formed (c. January 2025), the group strives to promote unimaginably obscene wealth. “Trillionaires for Trump” is following the lead of our Dear Leader in giving a golden middle finger to the peons of our world – you know, people like we bloggers, writers and other low-lifes. We’re the ones who actually pay taxes and keep the economy functioning, but no one calls “Us” job creators.
Go ahead and check out this gang! You might find your place in the world!
Image: Galerie
Filed under Curiosities
Social Living

“Social Security is the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time.”
Elon Musk, February 28, 2025
For elected officials here in the U.S., Social Security is much like a live power line: touch it and they’re done. Social security, along with Medicare and Medicaid, is one of those sacred vessels of American life. It’s not just beloved; it is sacrosanct.
Thus, for a foreign-born oligarch like Elon Musk to disparage it as a “scheme” has become anathemic. As something of a pseudo-president, Musk is head of the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which has taken a hacksaw to a number of departments within the federal government. The declared goal is to reduce bureaucratic weight by slashing jobs and merging together certain divisions within the system. Nowhere in this morass of right-wing blather is a dedication to make people like Musk and their corporations to pay their share of taxes. But that’s a different issue.
To place things in proper perspective – and put elected officials like Trump in their place – social security has too many safeguards to be considered a Ponzi scheme. Before the Social Security Act of 1935, a large number of older Americans lived in abject poverty. At the time it was common for families to take in older relatives. But some people simply didn’t have that support and they were left to fend for themselves. The concept of providing for those who simply couldn’t work or take care of themselves is nothing new. Various societies throughout history have considered the fragilities of the human condition and sought to alleviate those difficulties. It is simply immoral to abandon those who can’t care for themselves. It’s also rather easy to look at those who won’t take care of their own lives and group them with the others.
The Social Security Act has been amended several times since 1935, but it differs from a Ponzi scheme in many ways.
1. Social Security is not fraudulent
A Ponzi scheme is a deliberate a fraud intent to mislead investors.
2. Social Security’s operators do not take a cut
Unlike with Ponzi schemes, Social Security is not a profit-generating gamble, and the officials who run it do not take a portion of it for themselves.
3. Social Security is operated in the open
Social Security is a transparent, government-run program with clear funding mechanisms.
4. Social Security has built-in oversight
Unlike a Ponzi scheme, Social Security has many layers of oversight, auditing, regulation and legal and financial systems in place to ensure accuracy and transparency.
5. Social Security offers realistic returns
The goal of Social Security is to provide basic income replacement, not to generate get-rich-quick returns. Ponzi schemes often promise unrealistically high gains.
6. If financially stressed, Social Security can adjust funding and/or benefits
A fiscal imbalance in Social Security can be corrected, but a Ponzi scheme can’t. Social Security beneficiaries can’t demand to be paid a balance in their account if they suspect something is wrong. There can’t be a “bank run” on Social Security, and problems ultimately can be resolved.
It doesn’t surprise me that Trump and the Republican Party are targeting Social Security, or rather that conservative Republicans in general haven’t struck back at the president. Social and political conservatives have always been leery about government programs designed to help people. Before Franklin R. Roosevelt’s “New Deal” policies (designed and implemented to address the brutal impact of the Great Depression), government’s primary purpose was to enact laws and collect taxes. The collapse of the U.S. stock market in 1929 and the subsequent financial calamities that ensued changed that mindset – at least among the more open-minded. Social Security was just one project resulting from such forward thinking.
In 1944, Congress passed the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act (later known as the GI Bill) to assist those returning from military service during World War II. It provided a myriad of aid and services to these individuals, such as education and housing. Again, many conservatives denounced it as welfare.
Similar criticisms befell Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” some two decades later. From this massive undertaking, we got Medicare and Medicaid. But, as Johnson declared, the government should ensure both “liberty and abundance” for all citizens – not just those who can afford it. And as before, critics deemed it socialized medicine.
While it’s surprising that the U.S. federal government can operate with such alleged overspending – a bloated bureaucracy – it does provide substantial safety and security to most everyone here. The attack on Social Security is monstrous. Trump has sworn to leave it alone, but I personally don’t trust him.
I’m fast approaching the official retirement age of 62, yet I know I won’t be able to sit back in my quiet suburban home and embark on my dream life of being a full-fledged writer. The Social Security system is supposedly insolvent. Raising the official retirement age (as many, including Musk, have suggested) or reducing benefits won’t repair that problem. Funding for the Iraq War alone could have made Social Security fiscally viable for generations. Still, the program must be handled with care. Touching it irresponsibly is, indeed, akin to touching that live power line.
Filed under Essays
When Ann Said to Hell with It

Recently Ann Telnaes resigned her position as a political cartoonist for The Washington Post – a role she’d held for 16 years – in protest over the newspaper’s refusal to publish this cartoon. It apparently offended the oligarchs who have taken seats at Donald Trump’s table, including Amazon found Jeff Bezos who owns The Washington Post.
Good for her! In an environment increasingly hostile to free speech and free press, with right-wing extremists banning books instead of childhood hunger, it’s great that someone has the backbone to stand up to the madness. Here is Telnaes’ editorial explaining her decision.
Filed under Art Working
Elon Musk Can Kiss My Hairy Ass and Then Go Home

Elon Musk, the South African-born multi-billionaire who has founded several companies, including Tesla and Space X, has jumped into the 2024 presidential race with a curious stunt in support of Donald Trump. He’s offering USD 1 million to anyone who signs his pledge to support free speech and the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Pennsylvania State Attorney General Michelle Henry filed suit against Musk; stating the giveaway is technically a lottery not sanctioned by state officials. But Pennsylvania State Judge Angelo Foglietta stopped the litigation by refusing to block the Musk’s antics. Instead, he deferred the matter to a federal court and noted that Henry’s suit probably won’t be resolved before Election Day, next Tuesday.
I could care less whether this foreign-born tax cheat wants to engage in such capers. One million dollars to any average person is attractive, including myself. But my vote is more important than that. So is everyone else’s.
It seems every major election in the U.S. since 2000 has gotten more and more weird. I remain cynical, as my displeasure with government at all levels in this country grows. Both major political parties have become increasingly dominated by extremists. Regardless of the office they’re seeking, candidates have always played initially to their base; those unmovable die-hards who will vote for one side no matter what. Then, once the candidate has secured the nomination, they expand their outreach to persuade as many others as possible.
Over the past decade, however, Donald Trump has preached to one group and only one group: his faithful (and fanatical) acolytes. He mocks them, in a way, behind their collective backs; the same way false prophets ridicule their blind minions.
From a political standpoint, I consider myself left of center, but I’ve voted consistently Democrat since 1992. Then came 2016 and I went rogue by voting for Jill Stein of the Green Party. I didn’t care for Trump and I never liked Hillary Clinton. Now I absolutely despise Trump and don’t care for Vice-President Kamala Harris. Recently various European chapters of the Green Party have begged Stein to withdraw from the presidential race and support Harris. At this point, though, it may be too late.
I’m not – and never have been – persuaded by editorial or celebrity endorsements of a particular candidate. Musk can keep his money – and settle in comfortably at one of Trump’s estates. I’ll vote my conscious, for whatever that’s worth in these chaotic days. Besides, official Election Day, November 5, will be my 61st birthday. I won’t spend it thinking about politicians.
Image: Gary McCoy
Filed under Essays
Glassed

Around the turn of the century, I saw news that a women’s college here in the U.S. had contemplated admitting men within a year or two. The shock and outrage from the female student body was as palpable as it was vociferous. Ironically the institution had a male chancellor at the time. He tried explaining to the crowd that the college was trying to maintain its viability, but his voice was suffocated by the intense hysteria. You would have thought the incoming male students would be selected from a sex offender registry. I’m sure those young women had long since bought into the feminist myth that all men are naturally prone to violence, especially sexual assault. Almost immediately, however, the college rescinded its decision, much to the delight of the students. That same male chancellor made the announcement by unfurling a banner that bore the term “For Women Again”. The crowd erupted into cheers of relief; some even popping open bottles of champagne.
At the bank where I worked at the time, the subject arose during a lunch conversation. I was the only man in the small group, and my female colleagues collectively agreed that they understood the reticence of that college’s students to admit men. But, of course, I had to opine by highlighting the obvious anger those young women expressed at the initial announcement. “I wonder what those little girls will do when they enter the adult world and have real problems. And there’ll be men all over the place, and there’s not a goddamn thing they can do about it.”
I suppose my constituents weren’t surprised by the statement, but to some extent, they had to concur. There was a time when the genders were explicitly separated, and everyone seemed fine with it. Men did this, and women did that. And things functioned relatively well.
But I pointed out that, if women want true equality, they have to accept that men are part of that equation. In many ways, for centuries, men have excluded women from the decision-making process; claiming there was a “place” for them. Women have fought back and demanded a place at that proverbial decision-making table.
Oddly one of the women sitting with me in that lunch room didn’t believe women should be in positions of power, such as the U.S. presidency. “We have too many emotional and hormonal problems!” she said, much to the shock and chagrin of the other women. She wasn’t the first woman from whom I’d heard that. But this was 2000, and I was certain such beliefs had been relegated to ancient times – like dial phones.
A few years before that particular conversation a similar debate arose among me and some female colleagues at the bank; another one about gender parity. I noted that, if women wanted true equality with men, they needed to start registering for Selective Service – like the men have to do. In the U.S., Selective Service is the most blatant form of sexism. The current system was reinstated in 1980 by then-President Jimmy Carter. Every male in the U.S. born since January 1, 1960 has to register for it within 30 days of their 18th birthday. In the face of a never-ending Cold War and the sudden Iranian hostage crisis, it was a call-back to an older time in America. There’s no penalty for late registration, but there are plenty of punishments for failure to register – including jail time and a six-figure fine; no admittance to college; and no financial aid. The issue was a big one when I was in high school and it became a concern during the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
In the aforementioned workplace conversation, one of my female colleagues – the mother of a single college-aged son – responded, “When men get pregnant,” before storming off. Another woman concurred with a laugh. But I pointed out that men have to register for Selective Service; otherwise, face some serious legal repercussions. Women, on the other hand, don’t have to have children if they don’t want. There is no law that compels women to get pregnant. My female cohorts couldn’t offer a logical reply.
All of that came back to me last week, when Vice-President Kamala Harris accepted the Democratic Party’s nomination as presidential candidate. She’s only the second woman and the first non-White woman to be so honored. This year’s presidential campaign has literally turned out to be the oddest in decades; certainly the most unusual in my lifetime. And at the age of 60, I don’t have too many first time experiences left.
I started coming of age in the 1970s, just as the contemporary feminist movement was making more concerted inroads into a patriarchal American society. I recall how just being male seemed to become anathemic. Many women demanded full and complete equality with men in every aspect of civilization. Yet, by the 1990s, I noticed some women (and men) expected a double standard.
Women can’t reasonably demand to be treated as equals to men in business and politics, yet still expect to be placed in the same category as infants and children when it comes to their health and welfare. In other words, don’t insist on being given the chance to be the CEO of a major corporation, a governor, a Supreme Court justice, or president of the United States and still want to be the first ones in the lifeboat when the ship hits the ice berg.
If you want equality, I’ll give you equality. But, remember the old saying: be careful what you wish for; you might just get it. When it comes to progressive attitudes, I sometimes think of the 1967 film “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner”. Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn portray a liberal San Francisco couple whose all-inclusive ideology is tested when their daughter (Katherine Houghton) introduces her fiancé (Sidney Poitier) to them. While the movie is rife with stereotypes, the general message is essential: how sincerely should people value and hold onto their beliefs. The presidency of the United States has often been deemed the ultimate “glass ceiling” for women. As we march further into the 21st century, members of every previously-marginalized group need to consider how much shattered glass they want on the floor of progress.
Filed under Essays
Maelstrom

Donald Trump gets shot at an outdoor rally; Joe Biden ends his presidential campaign; and the 2024 Summer Olympics launch in Paris with opening ceremonies conducted down the Seine and Lady Gaga greeting crowds in French (when has an American ever visited a foreign country and spoken the local language?).
Oh and this summer in the Northern Hemisphere is already smashing temperature records, plus we’re experiencing a COVID resurgence. I thought 2020 was chaotic (and it truly was), but 2024 has proven even more unusual. When I saw news that Trump had been shot by a would-be assassin, I simply responded the same way conservatives have reacted to school shootings: I offered my thoughts and prayers. At least Trump survived.
Vice-President Kamala Harris has scooped up the embers of the Democratic torch and hurtled forwards towards November 5, Election Day here in the U.S. (and my 61st birthday). A good birthday present for me would be a completely different candidate to win the race, but I’m smart enough to realize that just won’t happen. I may go rogue and vote Green Party, as I did in 2016. If enough people followed suit, it could probably cost Harris the election, but it could also cost Trump. Die-hard Hillary Clinton supporters blamed folks like me for siphoning votes from her and essentially handing them to Trump. No, I told them! I didn’t cost Clinton the election. She cost herself the election!
But that was almost an entire decade ago, and – unlike many social conservatives – time marches onward. Harris made history when she became the first female and first non-White Vice-President. For many women, the U.S. presidency is the ultimate glass ceiling. But I have to note that, in this country, only men have to register for Selective Service and we have no law that bans male circumcision. So what constitutes gender equity? Many liberals and some moderates have already invested a lot of hope in Harris to save democracy from the hands of the despotic Trump.
Right-wing extremists have already painted Trump as a martyr for surviving the assassination attempt. Tears fell from the eyes of some at the Republican National Convention last week, as their beloved self-anointed prophet recounted the sting of what might have been a fragment of glass that struck his right ear instead of an actual bullet. Meanwhile, congressional hearings are still trying to determine how a geeky 20-year-old managed to climb atop the roof of a building within firing range of the former president – and why. The latter question may speak to the sensitive issue of mental instability, but also attests to the pernicious gun culture in the United States. But at least Democrats in Congress are expressing their collective shock at the assassination attempt, unlike their Republican counterparts who dismissed the riots of January 6, 2021 as “trespassing” and, of course, extend those ubiquitous “thoughts and prayers” after each mass shooting.
Thus, the political pandemonium that is American democracy continues. I only hope none of it contains any firearms.
Image: Gary Larson, © 1988
Filed under Essays


