Thursday, August 9, 2012

Social Security now called "Benefit", Why Is Romney Such A Bad Candidate?

 
From: Lois Hamilton [mailto:vlhamilton1@cox.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 1:31 PM

 

 So, what do you think that this is about?   Are we being given a clue to how these benefits will be eliminated as a “government-Federal-dole”, instead of something we paid into our entire working lives?  Something to watch…

Lois

 

 

SOCIAL SECURITY NOW CALLED 'FEDERAL BENEFIT PAYMENT' /ENTITLEMENT!

 

 Have you noticed, your Social Security check is now referred to as a "Federal Benefit Payment"?

 

 I'll be part of the one percent to forward this. I am forwarding it because it touches a nerve in me, and I hope it will in you.

 

 Please keep passing it on until everyone in our country has read it.

 

 The government is now referring to our Social Security checks as a “Federal Benefit Payment.” This isn’t a benefit – its earned income!

Not only did we all contribute to Social Security but our employers did too.

It totaled 15% of our income before taxes. If you averaged $30K per year over your working life, that's close to $180,000 invested in Social Security.

If you calculate the future value of your monthly investment in social security ($375/month, including both your and your employer’s contributions) at a meager 1% interest rate compounded monthly,

after 40 years of working you'd have more than $1.3+ million dollars saved! This is your personal investment .

 

 Upon retirement, if you took out only 3% per year, you'd receive $39,318 per year, or $3,277 per month . That’s almost three times more than today’s average Social Security benefit of $1,230 per month,

according to the Social Security Administration (Google it - it’s a fact).

And your retirement fund would last more than 33 years (until you're 98 if you retire at age 65)!

 

 I can only imagine how much better most average-income people could live in retirement if our government had just invested our money in low-risk interest-earning accounts. Instead, the folks in Washington pulled off a bigger Ponzi scheme than Bernie Madoff ever did. They took our money and used it elsewhere. They “forgot” that it was OUR money they were taking. They didn’t have a referendum to ask us if we wanted to lend the money to them. And they didn’t pay interest on the debt they assumed.

 

 And recently, they’ve told us that the money won’t support us for very much longer. But is it our fault they misused our investments?

 

 And now, to add insult to injury, they’re calling it a “benefit,” as if we never worked to earn every penny of it. Just because they “borrowed” the money, doesn't mean that our investments were a charity!

 

 Let’s take a stand.

 

 We have earned our right to Social Security and Medicare. Demand that our legislators bring some sense into our government – Find a way to keep Social Security and Medicare going, for the sake of that 92% of our population who need it.

 

 Here’s a novel idea: Reduce the military budget to support our own population after bringing our troops home. Get out of the countries who don’t want us there. Bring our soldiers home and invest some of the $700B+ in giving them new careers building roads and parks, teaching our children, creating new technologies, discovering cures for illness.

 

 Then take the rest and begin to pay back Social Security, and call it what it is: Our Earned Retirement Income.

 

 99% of people won't forward this.

Will you?

 

VOTE FOR PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS FOR CONGRESS!!!!! 

 

 

=

 * * *
 

Why Is Romney Such A Bad Candidate? It's Not The Man. It's The Policies.

Bill Scher's picture

By Bill Scher

August 7, 2012 - 12:00pm ET

While on The David Pakman Show yesterday, host David Pakman asked me why I thought Mitt Romney has proven to be such a bad candidate.

The conventional wisdom is that Romney is weird, aloof, socially awkward and removed from the lives of average Americans. All that may be true, but it's also true of plenty of successful politicians. Politics is not the profession for the well-adjusted.

Instead, I noted that Romney is having such a hard time because of the fundamental incoherence of his and party's issue platform.

The Republican Party and the conservative movement simply have done no significant soul-searching following the debacle of the George W. Bush presidency. They have admitted no error, and in turn, have refused to make any adjustments to convince the public they are ready to return to power.

In Romney's case, he appears to have some basic understanding that he can't take Tea Party anti-government talking points and expect to win the middle of the country. But he also can't speak truth to the Tea Party either.

He won't offer policies that are any different from President Bush's, because to do so would require admitting that something out of the Conservative 101 playbook -- lower taxes on the rich, fewer rules on corporations -- didn't work.

Instead he dances around nearly every question on policy, and panders to every audience he sees, in hopes no one will notice and will simply vote for him out of antipathy for President Obama.

But doing that dance leads to plenty of mistakes. Furthermore, there isn't widespread antipathy for Obama. The result: Romney is losing.

If the race continues the way, Romney will lose. The pundits, egged on by the conservative elite, will quickly blame Romney the person for the campaign's failings.

But the campaign is failing because conservatism failed first.

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2196 / Virus Database: 2437/5189 - Release Date: 08/09/12

Posted by Ed Pearl at 12:05 PM

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)