WELCOME TO OPINIONS BASED ON FACTS (OBOF)
Name | Published |
OVERVIEW | Dec. 28, 2010 |
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 1 | Dec. 30, 2010 |
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 2 | Jan. 10, 2011 |
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 3 | Jan. 17, 2011 |
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 4 | Jan. 24, 2011 |
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 5 | Jan. 31, 2011 |
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 6 | Feb. 07, 2011 |
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 7 | Feb. 14, 2011 |
SPECIAL ISSUE | Feb. 18, 2011 |
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 8 | Feb. 21, 2011 |
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 9 | Mar. 01, 2011 |
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 10 | Mar. 07, 2011 |
SS & MORE PART 1 | Mar. 14, 2011 |
SS & MORE PART 1A | Mar. 21, 2011 |
SS & MORE PART 2 | Mar. 25, 2011 |
SS & MORE PART 3 | Mar. 29, 2011 |
SS & MORE PART 4 | Apr. 04, 2011 |
SS & MORE PART 5 | Apr. 11, 2011 |
SS & MORE PART 6 | Apr. 18, 2011 |
SS & MORE PART 7 | Apr. 25, 2011 |
SS & MORE PART 7A | Apr. 29, 2011 |
SS & MORE PART 8 | May 02, 2011 |
SS & MORE PART 9 | May 09, 2011 |
SOCIAL SECURITY & MORE PART 9
IN THIS ISSUE
1. Introduction
2. Sources
3. Top of the news
4. Understanding the Republicans "No Taxes" position.
5. Social Security
6. From a faithful reader.
INTRODUCTION
I have purchased some new equipment that I think will help me a great deal in getting more information in a more coherent way.
I got a new, bigger monitor for my computer that offers me more flexibility. I now have another new monitor and Direct TV receiver box that permits me to record a program and then I can play it back, stop it when I want to write, back up if I need to or fast forward.
I have this right next to my computer monitor, so that I can type information right into the computer instead of having to scribble notes that I can't hardly read later. Also, got a new printer that is also, a copier, fax, & scanner. The scanner, particularly, is going to help.
Hopefully, this will improve what I am able to produce for you. I do know, at least, it is sure going to make it easier for me to get actuate information. Before to long I am planning to go to a web site, in addition to the blog. This will offer more access for people and allow me to provide pictures and videos. Here's to the future.
S O U R C E S
I want to let you know where I get much of my material. While I get it from a number of sources, I count on three to give me the most accurate and factual information. You may disagree with me about them being factual, but their reporting has, for the most part, proven to be correct.
The first is MSNBC Commentators Chris Mathews', Hard Ball show, Lawrence
The second source is the Washington
The third is the Nation magazine. Their investigative reporting goes in depth and detail to back up their reporting.
TOP OF THE NEWS
What else could it possible be, than OSAMA BIN LADEN. There has been quite enough said about his removal that I am sure you all have already heard and read. So, I am not going to get into the argument that is going on about who deserves credit for the capture and killing or what intelligence made it possible. I am simply going to say what I think. No facts here, just what I think.
1. I have no reason not to believe that Bin Laden is dead.
2. I believe our President acted courageously showing admirable leadership.
3. I believe that we should be grateful for the, heroiac, almost unbelievable, mission performed by the Navy Seals.
4. I believe that President Obama, again, showed courageous leadership in make, what I think was, the right decision not to release the photos of Bin Laden to the public when there was considerable pressure for him to do so.
Note: When I put this together the line of type was all in order and when I transfer to the blog, it all fall apart like above. I think you can still get the meaning however.
That's enough.
TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE
REPUBLICANS "NO TAXES" POSITION
Speaker Boehner has said that tax increases are a non starter, but maybe Republican lawmakers should rewrite what they think they know about the rank and file members of their party, particularly when it comes to lower taxes for the rich.
The latest poll taken by the Washington Post/ABC, April 14 -17, showed that 72% of Americans supported raising taxes on those making over $250K a yr, 27% oppose, no opinion 1%. But, how about Republicans? The same poll showed that 54% of Republicans favored taxing the rich, 68% of Independents favored and 91% of Democrats, as could be expected.
Republicans, Democrats, Independents, the Rich, most of our nation believe that taxing the rich should be a part of our National Debt and budget deficit solution. The only ones that are standing in the way of taxing the rich, are the elected Republicans in Congress. So we know that they are not representing their constituents on this issue.
This makes the Republican strategy more clear. The strategy that was started in the Reagan Administration, which was to starve the Beast, so that cutting Government spending will be politically easier to do, if you cut Governments financing by cutting taxes, by refusing to raise taxes under any circumstances including war. To be sure that the Government never has enough money.
That then opens the door for the Republicans to defund programs that they hate, which includes Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Planned Parenthood and any social programs. The Republican agenda is to force a situation that will justify, at least in their opinion, the cutting of social programs. Programs that they originally voted to put in place.
(This information from Lawrence
SOCIAL SECURITY
EVEN THOSE THAT SHOULD KNOW DON'T
Earlier, when I mentioned about my sources, I said that in connection with the Washington Post I had to be picky and choose because a few of their writers take a slant that the facts do not support. Such is a case with an article by "The Fact Checker" by Glenn Kessler. On April 26th he wrote "Excessive rhetoric on Social Security & Obama's budget plan."
Without quoting his entire article on Social Security, he takes the position that the Special Government Bonds that are in the SS Trust Fund, put there as the Government took the surplus money for other purposes, are as secure as regular public marketable Government Bonds.
That is his biggest mistake because he bases the rest of his position about Social Security's solvency on the fact that the Government never has and certainly never will default on it's obligation relative to Bonds. When he says Bonds it is coupled with a statement that leaves no doubt that he is considering them public marketable bonds, which they are not.
On "Meet The Press" a week ago, Senator Coburn used the word "stolen," as he has said before. Kessler said " Using the loaded word "stolen," as Coburn did, suggests that the trust fund is a fiction, or as some politicians assert, "worthless IOUs."
He further says that "IOUs, however, is just another way of saying Bonds. That these bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U. S.
It is obvious that Kessler does not understand the difference between marketable bonds and Special Government Bonds.
FOR NEW & PREVIOUS READERS
SUMMARY OF HAPPENINGS
TO SOCIAL SECURITY
First, and of utmost importance, is to keep saying, and pointing out, what SS is and isn't. It isn't an ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM. It is an INSURANCE PROGRAM. There is a big difference. The official name is "OLD AGE, SURVIVORS AND DISABILITY INSURANCE" (OASDI). Every official writing calls SS "INSURANCE." Also, what is referred to as "payroll taxes" relating to SS, is not a tax at all. It is an insurance premium. The official name of that withholding is "FEDERAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTION ACCOUNT" (FICA). That means that it is your contribution to your SS account. DID YOU GET THAT? YOUR ACCOUNT --not the Government's General Revenue account. You have every right to expect your account to pay for the benefits, that you have been told, by legislation, you should get at a certain time.
Lets take a quick run down from the beginning that set up the present problem. In 1982, the SS Insurance program was going to start running short of income to meet outgo. President Regean appointed a Commission to study the program and develop a plan that would keep SS solvent until 2041, which is when the youngest baby boomer would be 79 years old.
Before the plan they developed, the FICA income was to pay for the benefits of the previous generation. The new plan would have the present FICA pay for the benefits of the previous generation and the present generation, in other words, a double whammy. This plan would build up a surplus, so that by 2018 there would be $3.7 trillion available, which is about the time they figured, the FICA money would be less than the needed outgo for benefits. This would be the case as a result of fewer contributing to the income and also, the baby boomers would be receiving benefits.
Well, this sounded like a very good plan and it would have been except for one thing. Presidents and Congresses that followed could not stand to see that beautiful surplus just sitting there drawing interest when they could use it for other things.
It has always been the intention that SS money was never suppose to be used as general revenue. It finally became law that it was not to be used for general revenue in the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990. THAT DIDN'T MEAN A THING TO THE PRESIDENTS AND CONGRESSES THAT FOLLOWED. They just acted like that law wasn't there.
The money was used for financing wars, outlandish tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, for making the deficit spending to not look as bad as it was and many other things. This was the golden egg for them. BUT, NOW THE STUFF HAS HIT THE FAN. After taking out $2.6 trillion from the SS Trust Fund the fund is empty and the SS income is not sufficient to meet outgo.
SO NOW CONGRESS (I should say the Republicans in Congress) wants to cut benefits in the future and raise the retirement age and even want to privatize the program, which would do away with SS entirely. Privatizing is another subject entirely, which we will discuss at another time. What our lawmakers have done to us is unconscionable.
Finally, I should mention that when the Government took money out of the SS Trust Fund, it replaced it with what is called Special Government Bonds. They are nothing more than IOUs and have no dollar value at all.
The Government has had to start making up the difference from SS income and SS outgo, so now, many are saying that it contributes to the deficit. Actually, it is not contributing to the deficit at all. The money that has to be put in SS now is nothing more than a slim down payment on the $2.6 trillion it stole from the SS Trust Fund in the first place.
TWO IMPORTANT THINGS TO REMEMBER
1. SOCIAL SECURITY HAS BEEN, AND IS, A SELF SUPPORTING PROGRAM. IT IS THE MOST SUCESSFUL GOVERNMENT PROGRAM THAT HAS EVER BEEN PUT IN PLACE .
2. GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR STEALING THIS $2.6 TRILLION AND SHOULD HAVE TO REPLACE IT SOME WAY WITHOUT MAKING THE TAXPAYERS PAY AGAIN. ONE WAY WOULD BE TO TAX THE WEALTHY, WHO GOT A GREAT BENEFIT, FROM THIS $2.6 TRILLION, TO BEGIN WITH.
FROM A FAITHFUL READER
Ever since I started this blog, I have been in hopes that we could have some comments, pro or con, just so we could have some discussion. Not necessarily to change anyone's view point, but hopefully, to finally make our country better.
At the end of last week's posting, a faithful reader posted some really good comments. I want to summarize the comments and then post some of my reaction to it. First, a direct quote from the reader.
This is about as clear and easy to understand as it can be. The article below is completely neutral, neither anti-republican or democrat. Charlie Reese, a retired reporter for the Orlando Sentinel, has hit the nail directly on the head, defining clearly who it is that in the final analysis must assume responsibility for the judgments made that impact each one of us every day.
You can see the entire article that Mr. Reese wrote by looking at the comments at the end of last week's posting, which is SS & MORE PART 8. However, I will briefly state what it says.
Mr. Reese's belief is that ALL the problems that we have are the responsibility of the 545 people that make up the Congress, the President and the Supreme Court. He points out that these 545 alone create all the problems that we have today. He makes a list of the various responsibilities that these 545 have and that they, Democrat or Republican, cause the problems and that they should solve these problems.
The article is quite definitive and the reader says that all 545 should be thrown out and replaced. The reader may be right, except that I see it with a little different view point, which actually comes up with the same bottom line that the reader wants.
While it is true that the 545 do make the problems and then campaign against them, I don't think that is where the problem starts. It starts with the 300 million people that is referred to in the comments.
With regard to the 545 referred to, I ask, who put them there? We the people put them there. There is no one to blame for the problems, but the people. That is the very reason we have elections every two and four years, so that the people can replace if they want to. The things being pointed out are exactly what the Tea Party stands for.
They talk in generic terms instead of specifics and present this approach to the people and the people eat it up, so we have 86 new Freshman Tea Party members in the House of Representatives now. Are they solving anything? NO, they are not. Instead, they are causing more problems because they are not at all familiar with the consequences of their actions. And how could they? One of them was a park superintendent before he was elected and the other day he said that he had no idea as to the complexity of government and what happens if you do this or that.
With regard to the lobbyists and all the money that is said they, the candidates and officials could reject, we the people again are to blame for the fact that they can't reject most of it. Why? Think about it, a Representative has to run for office every two years. Our campaign system is clear out of hand and it takes a lot of money to win an election today.
Therefore, they have to get it from somewhere and that somewhere is where all the money is, with the rich and large corporations. You're only going to get money from them, if you scratch their back, so right there is the first step into the problems.
Mr. Reece says that Congress creates the problems. In my opinion, based on some facts that I have just stated, the problems go back to the people. How you correct that problem is the big question. I THINK THE BIGGEST PROBLEM OF ALL IS THE LACK OF EDUCATION OF OUR PEOPLE RELATIVE TO OUR COUNTRY AND DEMOCRACY.
I truly, thank the reader for the comments. There is a lot of truth in what you say. I am just going back a little further where I think the problems START. I urge all of you to look at the comments at the end of number 8 posting. See if you might want to add something to this subject.
NEXT WEEK
I plan to get into National Debt and Deficit next week plus, who knows what else.
Talk with you next week.
Floyd
Floyd you hit the nail right square on the head again in your article and in your response to my comments. I failed to exprees my beleif that the elected officials that keep us in this mess should have been managed by the voters or fired by voters long ago. After spending years of trying get voters to see the need for action and to follow up by first doing research and demanding nothing but facts and voting in accordance with facts. The voters in both parties are comfortable sitting backn and letting the spin doctors and politicians tell them how and what to think. This allowed the state to inact term limits when the voters had it in their power to limit terms all along by voting them out, if they would have used it. Todays voters pride themselves in saying ,”I don’t get involved in politics. I always do my civic duty and vote”. The Question here is how does going to the poles and voting with their mind made up by the twisted facts and outright liies spoonfed fed to them by those getting big money to make them believe a lie, coupled with who of the candidates display the most glamor, make them qualified to vote their their civic duty? An informed and balanced decided vote cast is the only vote that reaches civic duty standards. If you are choosing how to vote by any other source or person you could be voting for the demise of our beloved country.
ReplyDeleteFloyd, If you can gain success in presenting non spun facts to the voters and get their attention long enough to wake them and provoke them into balanced action based on facts you will have gained “HERO” status.