WELCOME TO OPINIONS BASED ON FACTS (OBOF)
&
THINGS YOU
MAY HAVE MISSED (TYMHM)
YEAR THREE
|
|
Published
|
|
OVERVIEW
|
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 14
|
Dec 18, 2012
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 15
|
Jan. 02, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 16
|
Jan. 08, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 16
EXTRA
|
Jan. 11, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 17
|
Jan. 15, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 18
|
Jan. 22, 2013
|
|
Gbtre OBOF & TYMHM PART 19
|
Jan. 29, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 20
|
Feb. 05, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 21
|
Feb. 14, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 22
|
Feb. 20, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 23
|
Feb. 27, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 23 0SPECIAL
|
Mar. 06, 2013
|
|
saOBOF & TYMHM PART 24
|
`
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 25
|
Mar. 12, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 25-EXTRA
|
Mar. 14, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 26
|
Mar. 19, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 27
|
Mar. 26, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 28
|
Apr. 02, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 29
|
Apr. 08, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 30
|
Apr. 17, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 31
|
Apr. 23, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 32
|
Apr. 30, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 33
|
May 07, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 34
|
May 18, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 35
|
May 21, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 36
|
May 30, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 37
|
June 05, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 38
|
June 11, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 39
|
June 18, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 40
|
June 25, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 41
|
July
02, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 42
|
July
09, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 43
|
July
16, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 44
|
July
23, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 45
|
July
30, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 46
|
Aug.
06, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 47
|
Aug.
14, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 48
|
Aug. 20, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 49
|
Aug. 27, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 50
|
Sept. 05, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 51
|
Sept. 11, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 52
|
Sept. 18, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 53
|
Sept. 26, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 54
|
Oct. 02, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 55
|
Oct. 09. 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 56
|
Oct. 16, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 57
|
Oct. 23, 2013
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM PART 58
|
Oct. 31, 2013
|
IN THIS ISSUE
1. The Wacko Party + Tid Bit.
2. On Social Security - Bowman.
3. On Social Security - Bernie Sanders.
4. The triumph of the Right.,
NOTE:
NEXT WEEK I AM GOING TO TRY
TO
PUBLISH ON WEDNESDAY.
~~~
THE WACKO PARTY
By Floyd Bowman
The Tea Party is rapidly becoming known
as the Wacko Party. Last week I
described the leader of the Wacko Party, and although he has two more
contenders for that spot, he remains the Wackest of the Wackos. This isn't my identification of this
group. I have heard this reference as "Wacko"
twice today. I think it identifies them
very well.
In a poll, that was taken last week of Republicans who would vote for President, The Wackest one got only 6%. I honestly didn't get the information on the rest
of the group. I just happened to catch
that one. Most people can't stand the
man at all.
ANOTHER NOTE OF INTEREST:
In any budget discussions, the
Republicans are always harping about cutting the DEFICIT. They never point out, and the Democrats
don't talk about it enough, the fact that the deficit was built up during the Geo
W. Bush years. Since
President Obama has been in office the deficit has been CUT IN HALF. That is right. The total deficit at the time Obama took
office has been cut in half in just five years.
Now, that in it's self is quite an accomplishment and he didn't have any
help from the Republicans in doing that.
There is another little tid
bit that you don't hear very often. Last
summer sometime, and I should stop and look it up, but I am already late in
getting this done, I gave you a breakdown on the development of the national
debt. It showed the rate of increase
national debt during each administration, starting with Reagan. Obama had by far the lowest rate increase of
any of them.
~~~
On Social Security
By Floyd Bowman
Publisher "Opinions
Based On Facts."
October 31, 2013
The next
two articles are about Social Security, but there are some glaring mistakes in
them. They are written by people that
should be in the know, particularly the first article, which was written by
Senator Bernie Sanders (I) Vermont
There are
some very important points in connection with Social Security that no one talks
about and they put a completely different slant on the status of Social
Security and the Government's responsibility toward that program.
There is
a man by the name of Allen W. Smith, Ph. D. that taught Economics at Eastern Illinois University
Social
Security was established as, and is, an insurance program. Many refer to it as an entitlement. It really isn't. An entitlement is benefits from a program
that is financed by the Federal Government.
Social Security is financed by premium payments made by those who will
be beneficiaries. The payments are paid
by a percent of the salary of anyone working and matched by the employer. It is known as FICA (Federal Insurance Credit
Account). It has nothing to do with any
other part of the government and adds nothing to the deficit. By law it is not suppose to be used as
General Revenue.
To cover
the cost of increase benefits when the baby boomers would start to draw SS, in
about 2010, the premium were increased in 1983 so that a surplus would build and be
available to pay full benefits to baby boomers when the income from premiums
would be less and not sufficient to cover the cost of the benefits.
It was
an excellent approach, except that politicians just couldn't stand to see all
that money sitting there doing nothing.
Contrary to law they started using that surplus for other programs such
as financing wars and tax cuts for the rich. When they used the money they replaced it
with what is called Special Government Bonds.
They do not draw interest and there was no repayment plan. President Obama and Speaker Boehner have both
recently said that the SS Trust Fund only has IOUs in it amounting $2.7 trillion and they do not have
any monetary value. This is also what
Dr. Smith has determined.
Now, all
that I have written above is based on the finding of Dr. Allen W. Smith and I
have the greatest respect for Dr. Smith too.
I am going to admit to you now that I am a little confused based on one
statement Senator Sanders has made in the following article.
From
Senator Sanders:
Is the Social Security Trust Fund “real,” or is it just a pile
of IOUs? The Social Security Trust Fund is very real. Social Security invests
the surplus money it receives from workers and employers into U.S. government bonds, the same bonds that China U.S.
Here is what the Social
Security Trust Fund government bond says:
“This bond is incontestable in the hands of the Old Age and
Survivors Insurance Trust Fund. The bond
is supported by the full faith and credit of the United States United States
Note also, that Senator Sanders has said that the SS Trust
Fund Bonds are the same Bonds China
I am going to try to determine which of these bonds are the
ones that are in the SS Trust Fund.
~~~
On Social Security
By Bernie Sanders.
U. S. Senator (I) Vermont
Monday, October 28, 2013.
The Koch brothers, Pete Peterson and other
billionaires are spending huge amounts of money trying to cut Social Security
and other vitally important federal programs. As part of this campaign, an enormous amount
of misinformation is floating around. Let
me try to set the record straight by answering a few of the questions that
people are asking my office.
Is Social Security “going broke?”
No! Social Security
is not going broke. According to the Social Security Administration, the Social
Security Trust Fund has a surplus today of $2.8 trillion. This sum, plus revenue that comes in every
day, can pay out every benefit owed to every eligible American for the next 20
years. In 2033, unless Congress acts,
Social Security will be able to pay out only 75 percent of benefits owed. Congress must act and make Social Security
strong for the next 50 to 75 years.
Is the Social Security Trust Fund “real,” or is it just a
pile of IOUs? The Social Security Trust
Fund is very real. Social Security
invests the surplus money it receives from workers and employers into U.S. government bonds, the same bonds that China U.S.
Here is what the Social Security Trust Fund government
bond says: “This bond is incontestable in the hands of the Old Age and
Survivors Insurance Tr u s t Fund. The
bond is supported by the full faith and credit of the United States United States
Is Social Security an “entitlement program?” Has it contributed to our deficit? Social Security is not an “entitlement
program.” It is an earned income benefit. The revenue from Social Security comes from
FICA payroll taxes, payments made by workers and their employers. Currently, workers contribute 6.2 percent of their income in FICA taxes — up to $113,700. Their employers match their payment. By law, Social Security cannot contribute to
the federal deficit. Social Security has
its own independent source of funding separate from the Treasury’s general
fund.
Has the Social Security program been successful? Social Security has been the most successful and reliable federal program in modern American history. For 78 years, Social Security has succeeded in keeping millions of senior citizens, widows, and the disabled out of poverty. Throughout its history, in good economic times and bad, Social Security has never failed to provide 100 percent of the benefits owed to eligible Americans.
Has the Social Security program been successful? Social Security has been the most successful and reliable federal program in modern American history. For 78 years, Social Security has succeeded in keeping millions of senior citizens, widows, and the disabled out of poverty. Throughout its history, in good economic times and bad, Social Security has never failed to provide 100 percent of the benefits owed to eligible Americans.
Before Social Security, about half of our
senior citizens lived in poverty. Today,
while still too high, fewer than 10 percent of seniors live in poverty, and
more than 57 million Americans receive Social Security benefits. What
is the “chained CPI”? The “chained” consumer price index is a new approach to
formulating cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) — the annual increases that
Social Security beneficiaries are supposed to receive each year based on
inflation. Believe it or not, the
“chained CPI” is based on the theory that COLAs are “too generous” — despite
the fact that, in recent years, COLAs have been negligible or even
non-existent.
A chained-CPI means that the average Social
Security recipient who retires at age 65 would get $658 less a year at age 75
and would get over $1,100 less a year at age 85 than under current law.
Further, not only would enacting a chained-CPI
be harmful to senior citizens, it would also make substantial cuts to the
VA benefits of more than 3.2 million veterans. Veterans who started receiving
VA disability benefits at age 30 would have their benefits reduced by $1,425 at
age 45, $2,341 at age 55 and $3,231 at age 65.
What is a fair and sensible long-term funding solution to Social Security? The fairest approach to making Social Security fully solvent for the next 50 years is to lift the cap on taxable income, now at $113,700, and apply the Social Security payroll tax on income above $250,000. Right now, someone who earns $113,700 a year pays the same amount in Social Security taxes as a billionaire. This makes no sense. Applying the Social Security payroll tax on income above $250,000 would only impact the wealthiest 1.3 percent of wage earners. In other words, 98.7 percent of wage earners in theUnited
States
Why is there so much talk about cutting Social Security? Despite the fact that poll after poll shows that the American people — Democrats, Republicans and Independents — overwhelmingly do not want to cut Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid, very powerful Big Money interests and campaign contributors are pushing Congress and the President to do just that. People like the Koch brothers, a family worth $71 billion, believe in a very different kind ofAmerica
As a member of a Senate and House committee that meets for the first time on Wednesday to begin work on a new long-term budget, my job is to represent the needs of ordinary Americans, not powerful special interests.
What is a fair and sensible long-term funding solution to Social Security? The fairest approach to making Social Security fully solvent for the next 50 years is to lift the cap on taxable income, now at $113,700, and apply the Social Security payroll tax on income above $250,000. Right now, someone who earns $113,700 a year pays the same amount in Social Security taxes as a billionaire. This makes no sense. Applying the Social Security payroll tax on income above $250,000 would only impact the wealthiest 1.3 percent of wage earners. In other words, 98.7 percent of wage earners in the
Why is there so much talk about cutting Social Security? Despite the fact that poll after poll shows that the American people — Democrats, Republicans and Independents — overwhelmingly do not want to cut Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid, very powerful Big Money interests and campaign contributors are pushing Congress and the President to do just that. People like the Koch brothers, a family worth $71 billion, believe in a very different kind of
As a member of a Senate and House committee that meets for the first time on Wednesday to begin work on a new long-term budget, my job is to represent the needs of ordinary Americans, not powerful special interests.
~~~
The
Triumph of the Right
Robert Reich
NationofChange
/ Op-Ed
Published: Wednesday 23 October 2013
Conservative Republicans have lost their fight over the
shutdown and debt ceiling, and they probably won’t get major spending cuts in
upcoming negotiations over the budget.
But they’re winning the big one: How the nation
understands our biggest domestic problem.
They say the biggest problem is the size of government
and the budget deficit.
In fact our biggest problem is the decline of the middle
class and increasing ranks of the poor, while almost all the economic gains go
to the top.
The Labor Department reported Tuesday that only
148,000 jobs were created in September — way down from the average of 207,000
new jobs a month in the first quarter of the year.
Many Americans have stopped looking for work. The official unemployment rate of 7.2 percent
reflects only those who are still looking. If the same percentage of Americans were in
the workforce today as when Barack Obama took office, today’s unemployment rate
would be 10.8 percent.
Meanwhile, 95 percent of the economic gains
since the recovery began in 2009 have gone to the top 1 percent. The real median household income continues to
drop, and the number of Americans in poverty continues to rise.
So what’s Washington
The deficit shouldn’t even be
an issue because it’s now almost down to the same share of the economy as it’s
averaged over the last thirty years. And it is one half what it was when
Obama took office. Floyd.
The triumph of right-wing Republicanism extends further.
Failure to reach a budget agreement will restart the so-called “sequester” —
automatic, across-the-board spending cuts that were passed in 2011 as a result
of Congress’s last failure to agree on a budget.
These automatic cuts get tighter and tighter, year by
year — squeezing almost everything the federal government does except for
Social Security and Medicare. While
about half the cuts come out of the defense budget, much of the rest come out
of programs designed to help Americans in need: extended unemployment benefits;
supplemental nutrition for women, infants and children; educational funding for
schools in poor communities; Head Start; special education for students with
learning disabilities; child-care subsidies for working families; heating assistance
for poor families. The list goes on.
The biggest debate in Washington over the next few months
will be whether to whack the federal budget deficit by cutting future
entitlement spending and closing some tax loopholes, or go back to the
sequester. Some choice.
The real triumph of the right has come in shaping the
national conversation around the size of government and the budget deficit –
thereby diverting attention from what’s really going on: the increasing
concentration of the nation’s income and wealth at the very top, while most
Americans fall further and further behind.
Continuing cuts in the budget deficit – through the
sequester or a deficit agreement — will only worsen this by reducing total
demand for goods and services and by eliminating programs that hard-pressed
Americans depend on.
The President and Democrats should re-frame the national
conversation around widening inequality. They could start by demanding an increase in
the minimum wage and a larger Earned Income Tax Credit. (The President doesn’t’ even have to wait for
Congress to act. He can raise the
minimum wage for government contractors through an executive order.)
Framing the central issue around jobs and inequality
would make clear why it’s necessary to raise taxes on the wealthy and close tax
loopholes (such as “carried interest,” which enables hedge-fund and
private-equity managers to treat their taxable income as capital gains).
It would explain why we need to invest more in education
– including early-childhood as well as affordable higher education.
This framework would even make the Affordable Care Act
more understandable – as a means for helping working families whose jobs are
paying less or disappearing altogether, and therefore in constant danger of
losing health insurance.
The central issue of our time is the reality of widening
inequality of income and wealth. Everything else — the government shutdown, the
fight over the debt ceiling, the continuing negotiations over the budget
deficit — is a dangerous distraction. The
Right’s success in generating this distraction is its greatest, and most
insidious, triumph.
~~~
If the good Lord is willing and the creek don't rise, I'll talk with you
again next WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2013.
God Bless All of You
&
God Bless the United States of America
Floyd
No comments:
Post a Comment