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
|
SS & MORE PART 10
|
May 16, 2011
|
SS & MORE PART 11
|
May 24, 2011
|
SS & MORE PART 12
|
Jun. 06, 2011
|
SS & MORE PART 13
|
Jun. 20, 2011
|
SS & MORE PART 14
|
JULY 05,2011
|
SS & MORE PART 14A
|
JULY 18, 2011
|
SS & MORE PART 15
|
JULY 19, 2011
|
SS & MORE PART 16
|
AUG. 03, 2011
|
SS & MORE PART 17
|
AUG. 15, 2011
|
SS & MORE PART 18
|
Aug. 29, 2011
|
SS & MORE PART 19
|
Sept. 12, 2011
|
SS & MORE PART 20
|
Sept. 26, 2011
|
SS & MORE PART 21
|
Oct. 10, 2011
|
SS & MORE PART 22
|
Oct. 24, 2011
|
SS & MORE PART 22 EXTRA
|
Nov. 04, 2011
|
SS & MORE PART 23
|
Nov. 07, 2011
|
SS & MORE PART 24
|
Nov. 21, 2011
|
SS & MORE PART 25
|
Dec. 05, 2011
|
SS & MORE PART 26
|
DEC. 19, 2011
|
SS & MORE PART 27
|
JAN. 03, 2012
|
SS & MORE PART 27A
|
JAN. 05, 2012
|
SS & MORE PART 28
|
JAN. 17, 2012
|
SS & MORE PART 29
|
JAN. 31, 2012
|
SS & MORE PART 30
|
Feb. 14,2012
|
SS & MORE PART CL1
|
Feb. 21, 2012
|
SS & MORE PART 30 EXTRA
|
Feb. 23, 2012
|
IN THIS ISSUE
1. One frustrated guy.
2. Why such a war on women.
3. Missiles pointed at Social Security.
ONE FRUSTRATED GUY
I'm fighting to find words that can adequately express my outrage at the things that are being said about our country, our President, and the destruction that is taking place in our country.
The Republican candidates for President are having a real tough time of knowing what to say. Originally, they thought they were going to be able to attack President Obama's failure in increasing jobs and his failure in getting the recovery started. Well, they can't do either one, IF they go by the facts. They don't bother with the facts or the truth.
Private sector jobs increased by 3.7 million since President Obama became President. Unemployment went down from 9.2% to 8.3%. Not enough, of course, but certainly in the right direction. The same is true with the economy. GM has bounced back, reporting the highest last quarter profits in their history. They have also come back to be the largest auto maker in the world. There are many other companies going in the same direction. The economy is going in the right direction.
Since they can't do the things they wanted to do, they started out attacking each other, but now they are going after the President in the most disgusting and false way. Candidate Santorum is now questioning the President's faith. Religion has now got into the fray and in a nasty way. Religion has no place in campaigning, in my opinion.
I can make my determination about voting for President by hearing and knowing about his life values and how he has lived his life. We are voting for a President, who can give sensible direction to the problems of our country, not a theologian.
If you want to discuss religion and the practice of religion, go to church. As everyone knows, there are many, many different denominations. But let me ask you, how many times in your everyday contacts with people, do you even wonder about their religion let alone talk about it?
Freedom of religion is one of the greatest things about our country and we don't condemn anyone just because they belong to a different church than we do. Church and State are suppose to be kept separate and, in my opinion, should not be a part of Presidential campaigning. True, I don't want an atheist as my President, but how he has lived his life will tell me that.
Questioning President Obama's Christianity, in my opinion, is out of bounds and not at all appropriate. One definition of being a Christian is "a person exhibiting Christian qualities." I, for one, believe that President Obama exhibits those qualities. I don't think that a person who attacks another person by questioning their Christianity is much of a Christian themselves. Candidate Santorum has not only done that today, the 20th of Feb., but he also compared the President to Hitler. How anyone could come to a conclusion like that is just not with it at all and sure is not the type of person I would want as my President.
Newt Gingrich said that "President Obama is the most dangerous President we have ever had about National security." These guys go on and on with statements like that, without any back up reasons. BUT so many, many people believe them. They just try to play on emotions. The listeners think that if these people say these things they have to be right or they wouldn't say it. The same way so many feel about the worst television broadcasting there has ever been - - Fox News. It is far from legitimate news.
~~~
WHY, SUCH A WAR ON WOMEN?
Air ways, my e-mail, newspapers, TV commentators and just about anywhere you looked last week, you saw something about the war on women. One thing that happened and gained the most attention was a House of Representatives Oversight Committee hearing on the subject.
The hearing was about the Obama Administration's new regulation requiring employers and insurers to provide contraception coverage to their employees. The big uproar about the hearing, was the fact that no women were allowed to testify, only men. The big cry was "WHERE ARE THE WOMEN."
Democrats, on the committee, had invited a woman, Sandra Fluke, a third year law student at Georgetown University
Now I could go on, at length, regarding this matter, but instead I just want to give you my opinion based on facts I have gained from my researching various writings.
As I understand it, contraception is used for just two things. The first, most of us are familiar with, which is to prevent pregnancies. The second, and the one that Ms Fluke was going to testify about, is for medical purpose used in some cases to prevent the growth of cysts on the female ovaries. This procedure, apparently, is somewhat expensive.
Now my opinion is that when contraception is needed as a medical treatment it certainly should be covered by health insurance.
When contraception is used to prevent pregnancies, we need to look at the real reason she needs contraception. That reason can be said with one word = MEN. If it weren't for men, they wouldn't need contraception at all. So, until men change their action with women we need to provide for the cost to the women. Now we have to be realistic and recognize that human behavior is not going to change.
I don't know the percentage of women in the House of Representatives, but I think the greater percent are men. So I say to you men in the House of Representatives, you are part of the need for women contraception. So, get you head on straight, do the right thing. Insurance pays for medicine to improve erection for men. Why on earth should insurance not pay for contraception for women?
Another article on the same subject had some real interesting comments at the end. The following is just one.
New Similarities
It's amazing how similar the Republicans are becoming to the Taliban, since both want to restrict personal freedom in the name of religion. Makes you wonder why we are even fighting them if we spend our time adopting their polices.
Republicans want submissive women but only the Southern Baptists had the courage to come out and just say it, just like the Taliban do, and also want complete control over the reproductive rights. Both legislate who you can marry, or how many(women out number men 4-1) so if you don't change the archaic laws there will be more pressure for same sex marriages. The Catholic priests rape young boys just like the Taliban does. See how similar the Republican and Taliban really are.
~~~
MISSILES ARE POINTED AT
SOCIAL SECURITY & MEDICARE
The following is part of an article written by Forma Harrop for the publication NATIONofCHANGE. It was published on February 13, 2012 and drew quite a number of comments. Some of the comments were quite good, but just didn't give enough detail. I posted two comments myself.
This is very important as it will affect everyone sooner or later. I guarantee you that the Republicans are going along with this only because they think at the end of the "payroll tax holiday" (which really is not a tax at all. It is an insurance policy premium.) they will be able to cut SS off at the knees for good. This is what they have been trying to do, since 1935 when it first became law. If, we Democrats don't do our job and re-elect President Obama, get back the House of Representatives, and get a filibuster proof Senate, Social Security and some other good programs will be a thing of the past.
SELECTED PARTS OF THE ARTICLE
Missiles are pointed at Social Security and Medicare, the broad-based programs for older Americans. Some are stealth missiles. Some are misguided missiles. But both parties are pointing them.
Since the beginning of 2011, American workers have enjoyed a "temporary" 2 percentage point cut in their payroll taxes covering Social Security. President Obama wants to extend the payroll tax holiday to the end of this year. This kind of tax break does put more dollars in working people's pockets and so provides an economic stimulus.
But astute observers know that such discounts can eventually lead to more anxiety than pleasure because they undermine what the program is really about. The payroll tax provides the money to cover Social Security benefits now and in the future. Under this setup, workers and their employers entirely fund the program. Thus, it is not welfare at all. Social Security is an earned benefit. You paid for it. That means no one can make a moral argument for taking that money away from you (not that some don't try).
If you want to undermine Social Security's moral foundation, a good approach is to reduce payroll taxes and replace the lost revenues with money from the Treasury. That is what the Obama administration is doing, with bipartisan help
So while the dollars may be there, they are no longer all coming directly from the workers and employers. That means Social Security is no longer entirely self-funded, opening gaps in the program's defenses against those who would sink it.
Also, any extended holiday stops feeling like a holiday after a while.
It feels like the way things have always been. And so when after two years the leaders call for restoring the old tax rate, the program's foes (and some friends) cry "tax hike." As a result, it will get harder and harder to return Social Security to its formerly pure state of self-reliance
It's important to keep Social Security and Medicare honest, simple and universal. Policies that weaken any of these attributes can eventually threaten the whole deal
~~~
MY COMMENTS FOLLOW
FLOYD BOWMAN
February 20, 2012 2:54am
For the past 11 years a retired Economist, Mr. Allen W. Smith Ph.D., has been doing everything possible to try and educate the public about the TRUE background and present situation with Social Security. He has written three books on the subject and spent thousands of dollars of his own money, trying to get this job done. For the past 5 years, I have been trying to do the same thing with a blog I have. Now, in short, the article above is pretty much on track. There needs to be some more clarification and emphasis however.
The one point that has not been mentioned is that in 1983 there was legislation passed that was designed to build a surplus of $3.7 trillion by 2018. That surplus was then to be used to meet the increase outgo as the baby boomer generation began to receive SS. It was designed that way, because it was recognized that besides an increase in the outgo, there would also be an decrease in the income, due to fewer workers. It was a good plan and would have worked, so that there would be no problem at all with SS now, except for one problem.
That problem was that since 1987, when the surplus had started to build, all Presidents and Congresses since, including Reagan have taken that surplus and used it as though it were general revenue. That is, against the intent of SS and against the law as set forth in the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990. They paid no attention to the law. Some will tell you that when they took the money from the SS Trust Fund, it was replaced with government bonds that drew interest and the Trust Fund was good as gold. NOT TRUE.
The government bonds were called Special Government Bonds. They have absolutely no cash value and do not draw interest. They are only backed by the promise and good faith of the U. S. U. S.
NOW, EVEN THOUGH THE GOVERNMENT IS NOW MAKING UP THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INCOME AND OUTGO FOR SS, AT THE PRESENT TIME, I MAINTAIN THAT IT IS STILL SELF SUPPORTING. THE MONEY THE GOVERNMENT IS PUTTING IN NOW IS NOTHING MORE THAN A DOWN PAYMENT, AND A SMALL ONE AT THAT, ON THE $2.6 TRILLION DOLLARS THAT HAS BEEN LOANED (STOLEN) FROM THE SS TRUST FUND. SOCIAL SECURITY HAS NEVER AND IS NOT NOW A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR TO THE BUDGET DEFICIT. IT IS THE MOST SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS VERY PRODUCED.
Floyd Bowman
February 20, 2012 4:25am
February 20, 2012 4:25am
I have been reading over comments. I should have done that before I wrote the one that I think is directly above this one. At any rate, they are all quite good, but I like to give a little more detail to some of it. For example, they are right when they say that on your payroll stub the SS deduction is listed as FICA. However, the important point in that FICA, is what it stands for. "FEDERAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTION ACCOUNT" Now, that really says a lot. First it recognizes that this is an insurance, and more importantly, it is your insurance. Every place Social Security is referred to, in legislation, and other legal references, calls Social Security an Insurance program.
One or two people above have mentioned that using the term, reducing the payroll tax, is wrong. It is reducing your contribution to your insurance policy. What happens when you reduce your premium payments on your life insurance? You don't have it anymore do you, unless your insurance company will allow you to make up those premiums later.
The same thing is true with your Social Security Insurance Policy. So, if you are going to have a little more money in your pocket right now, because the premium payment is now temporarily reduced, you know that in order for that insurance policy to be there for you to draw benefits when you become eligible, you will have to pay more premiums in the future.
I just want to say once more, that Social Security is an INSURANCE POLICY and you pay premiums for that insurance, not taxes. WE HAVE TO CALL IT FOR WHAT IT REALLY IS.
~~~
If the good Lord is willing and the creek don't rise, I'll talk with you again by noon on Tuesday February 28, 2012.
Floyd
No comments:
Post a Comment