Thursday, September 23, 2010

Privatizing Social Security, a bad idea.

My wife and I receive $1,650 each month from Social Security. My private investments now are earning me an average of 3%. At that rate of interest, in order to earn $1650 a month, or $19,800 a year, I would need $660,000 in principal. To accumulate that much principal in 31 years (approximately how long I paid into SS) I would had to have contributed $21,290 per year, or #1,774 per month, I believe my salary when I retired from public service was around $50,000 per year or $4,166 per month. For my first ten years of employment, I never earned over $1,000 per month. How could I have possibly done better investing myself?

Twelve Reasons Why Privatizing Social Security is a Bad Idea
Greg Anrig, Bernard Wasow, The Century Foundation, 12/14/2004

Addressing Social Security’s potential long-term financing challenges by taking the dramatic step of diverting its payroll taxes to create new personal accounts will have drastic consequences for federal finances, future retirees, and those who rely on the system the most. Learn more about twelve major reasons why less costly and less painful reforms should be considered instead.

Click on the links below to jump to different parts of the document or download in PDF format here.

Reason #1: Today's insurance to protect workers and their families against death and disability would be threatened.

Reason #2: Creating private accounts would make Social Security's financing problem worse, not better.

Reason #3: Creating private accounts could dampen economic growth, which would further weaken Social Security's future finances.

Reason #4: Privatization has been a disappointment elsewhere.

Reason #5: The odds are against individuals investing successfully.

Reason #6: What you get will depend on whether you retire when the market is up or down.

Reason #7: Wall Street would reap windfalls from your taxes.

Reason #8: Private accounts would require a new government bureaucracy.

Reason #9: Young people would be worse off.

Reason # 10: Women stand to lose the most.

Reason #11: African Americans and Latin Americans also would become more vulnerable under privatization.

Reason #12: Retirees will not be protected against inflation.


How much longer will the corporations own the USA?

Rep. Alan Grayson to me
show details 12:49 PM (23 minutes ago)

Help keep Caligula's horse out of Congress, by supporting our campaign with your contribution.

Dear Brooks,

Here is a short, and very relevant, history lesson.

The Roman Senate governed Ancient Rome for five centuries. It looked much like the Congress today. The purpose of the Roman Senate was to rule in accordance with the wishes of the Roman People. The building in which the Roman Senate met, the "Curia Julia," still stands in Rome today.

In 27 B.C., Augustus Caesar formally took control of Rome, and established the Roman Empire. But the Roman Emperors didn't abolish the Senate. Instead, the Roman Senate continued to meet, for five more centuries, doing pretty much nothing.

Sound familiar?

During the Roman Empire, the Emperor held all the power. The Senate was simply a debating society, chosen by the Emperor, and serving at his pleasure. To prove this point, in 39 A.D., Emperor Caligula appointed his horse, Incitatus, to the Roman Senate.

What we are heading for, here in America, is something very much like that. The way things are going, Big Money will choose our "leaders" in Congress, and they will serve at Big Money's pleasure.

Big Money doesn't put horses in Congress. Just the hind-quarters of horses.

For the past few weeks, we have shown how Big Money is trying to select - not elect, select -- the Congressman from my district. Big Money has now spent three times as much in lying TV attack ads as all of the money that my Republican opponent has raised. Big Money is going all out to replace me in Congress, because I can't be bought.

Big Money doesn't care who replaces me, as long as he's pliant. It might as well be Caligula's horse.

We are at a turning point in our own history. What will we be? A government of the people, by the people, and for the people? Or a dictatorship, ruled by the Empire of Money?

Help us make sure that government of the people, by the people, and for the people, does not perish from this earth.


Alan Grayson

P.S. To the 2000 supporters who have contributed to our campaign since this corporate firebombing began, from my heart, thank you.

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

The stimulus made easy

If you were in debt - morgage, car loan, kid's college, furniture, etc. - and your car broke down and you had use your credit card to pay for the repairs would you do it, even though your debt will be higher, or would you stay home from work to avoid the additional debt?

Obama says yes, it's the only way you can pay off your debts.

G roup O f P honies say no, you should first pay off the debts, maybe your car will fix itself.

Tuesday, September 7, 2010

Just do it!

Thom's blog
Will Obama's $50 billion Plan Work?
President Obama is proposing a huge massive rebuilding program that costs around $50 billion. Obama, hoping to stimulate the economy, will call for 150,000 miles of roads, 4,000 miles of railways, and 150 miles of runways to be constructed or rebuilt. Meanwhile, in a give-a-way to business, Obama will also propose that companies be allowed to more quickly write off 100% of their new investment in plants and equipment through 2011. It's unclear so far how Obama plans to get this through Congress. If he does it by extending existing programs, it could get through the Senate by reconciliation, a process that only requires 50 votes and that was used extensively by George Bush to pass his tax cuts and give goodies to rich people. Doing so, however, would mean abandoning any pretense of bipartisanship, and may even encounter resistance from some of the more heavily corporate funded Democrats like Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln. Whether it passes or not, however, the stimulative effect won't be felt until next year, too late to help Obama with this year's election.