So our government, or should I say one specific party, is talking about socializing our retirement plans into one big pot to go along with the Social Security program. Hmmm … Sounds like redistributing the wealth to me. Where in the hell does it say in The Constitution of The United States of America that government can steal from people who saved their own money and give it to other people?

Democrats in the U.S. House have been conducting hearings on proposals to confiscate workers’ personal retirement accounts — including 401(k)s and IRAs — and convert them to accounts managed by the Social Security Administration.

Triggered by the financial crisis the past two months, the hearings reportedly were meant to stem losses incurred by many workers and retirees whose 401(k) and IRA balances have been shrinking rapidly.

Teresa Ghilarducci, an economics professor, proposed this plan.  Here’s Teresa’s explanation: “The way the government now encourages 401(k) plans is to spend $80 billion in tax breaks, which goes to the highest-income earners.  That simply results in transferring money from taxed savings accounts to untaxed accounts.  If we implement automatic [individual retirement accounts] or if we expand the 401(k) system, all we’re doing is adding to this inefficiency.”

Inefficiency?!  WTF!  When did our own government become efficient at anything besides “F’ing” shit up?

This story will make you sick.

Here are some of the details of President-elect Obama’s redistribution of wealth/welfare tax plan:

Income Tax
Maintain current tax rates of 10% to 28% for most Americans. Reinstate top tax rates of 36% and 39.6% on joint income of more than $250,000 ($200,000 for individuals).

Capital Gains/Dividends
Maintain maximum rate of 15% for most taxpayers. Boost top rate to 20% for investors with income of more than $250,000. Under current law, taxpayers in the two lowest income-tax brackets pay zero capital gains in 2008, 2009 and 2010. Eliminate capital-gains taxes on start-ups and small businesses to encourage innovation.

Retirement Accounts
Suspend mandatory distributions for those 70 ½ and older. Permit taxpayers to withdraw up to $10,000 from retirement accounts penalty-free; withdrawals would still be subject to income taxes.

New Tax Cuts
Tax credit of up $1,000 to offset Social Security taxes for low-wage earners. Eliminate income tax for seniors making less than $50,000. Double the tax credit for college expenses to $4,000. Create a 10% mortgage tax credit for those who don’t itemize. Provide a $1,000 rebate funded by a windfall-profits tax on oil companies to offset high energy costs.

AMT
Maintain current exemption and index to inflation.

Estate Tax
Set exclusion at $3.5 million per person ($7 million per couple); keep rate at 45%.

Social Security
Maintain current wage base of $106,800, indexed for inflation. Impose additional tax of 2% to 4% paid by employers and employees on earnings exceeding $250,000 — but delay implementation for at least ten years.

Corporate Tax
Keep top rate at 35%; close corporate loopholes.

Read the full story.

Did you know that we can eliminate the IRS and have a simpler, fairer and more transparent tax system?  The question is is government willing to lose it’s power?

Do you know what the FairTax Act is?

* Ensures Social Security and Medicare funding
* Enables workers to keep their entire paychecks
* Enables retirees to keep their entire pensions
* Refunds in advance the tax on purchases of basic necessities
* Allows American products to compete fairly
* Brings transparency and accountability to tax policy
* Closes all loopholes and brings fairness to taxation
* Abolishes the IRS

For more information visit www.fairtax.org.

An updated analysis of the McCain and Obama tax plans according to the Tax Policy Center. The salary table is located below the article.

Senator McCain would permanently extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, increase deductions for taxpayers supporting dependents, reduce the corporate income tax rate, and allow immediate deductions for investments in certain capital equipment. Senator Obama would permanently extend certain provisions of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts primarily affecting taxpayers with incomes under $250,000 but repeal the cuts in the top two marginal income tax rates ahead of their scheduled expiration in 2010; increase the maximum rate on capital gains; raise the top tax rate on qualified dividends from its current level (but keep it below pre-2001 levels); and enact new and expanded targeted tax breaks for workers, retirees, homeowners, savers, students, and new farmers. Senator McCain proposes to extend permanently and increase the AMT “patch” that has prevented most individuals and families with incomes below $200,000 from being affected by the tax and lowered the tax for others, and in our interpretation of his proposal, Senator Obama would also extend the patch. Each candidate would also increase the estate tax exemption and reduce the estate tax rate compared with current law in 2011 and beyond, although Senator McCain would cut the tax much more than Senator Obama. Finally, each candidate promises to broaden the tax base and reduce corporate loopholes. McCain lists eight breaks for oil companies as targets but, other than that, is short on details for his pledge to eliminate “corporate welfare.” Obama identifies a variety of steps, including basis reporting for capital gains, taxing carried interest as ordinary income, and enacting sanctions on international tax havens that don’t cooperate with enforcement efforts, but he would also need additional as-yet-unspecified policies to achieve his revenue target for base broadening.

Although both candidates have at times stressed fiscal responsibility, their specific non-health tax proposals would reduce tax revenues by an estimated $4.2 trillion (McCain) and $2.9 trillion (Obama) over the next 10 years. Both candidates argue that their proposals should be scored against a “current policy” baseline instead of current law. Such a baseline assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts would be extended and the AMT patch made permanent. Against current policy, Senator Obama’s proposals would raise $600 billion and Senator McCain’s proposals lose a similar amount.

The two candidates’ tax plans would have sharply different distributional effects. Senator McCain’s tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes, almost all of whom would receive large tax cuts that would, on average, raise their after-tax incomes by more than twice the average for all households. Many fewer households at the bottom of the income distribution would get tax cuts and those tax cuts would be small as a share of after-tax income. In marked contrast, Senator Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers and would increase taxes on high-income taxpayers. The largest tax cuts, as a share of income, would go to those at the bottom of the income distribution, while taxpayers with the highest income would see their taxes rise significantly.

The impact of the tax code on economic activity under each candidate’s policies would differ in several important ways. Under Senator McCain’s proposed policies, the top marginal rates (35 percent on individual income and 25 percent on corporate income) would be significantly lower than under Senator Obama’s plan (39.6 and 35 percent, respectively). McCain’s reduced individual and corporate rates could improve economic efficiency and increase domestic investment, but the larger future deficits would reduce and might completely negate any positive effect. In contrast, Senator Obama’s proposed new tax credits could encourage desirable behavior, particularly if the childless EITC and payroll tax rebate encourage additional labor supply among childless low-income individuals. However, he would also direct new subsidies at an already favored group-seniors -and an already favored activity-homeownership-which could probably be better directed elsewhere.

In several important ways, the candidates’ speeches and web sites differ from the plans as we’ve outlined them above, and, in several cases, descriptions of proposals provided by campaign advisors strike us as implausible. Senator McCain has said repeatedly that he would repeal the individual AMT, allow businesses to expense all investments in equipment immediately, double the deduction for dependents, and give individuals the option to pay tax under a simplified alternative tax system. The campaign advisers say that the AMT will be patched but not eliminated except under the simplified alternative system, that only short-lived investments (for which expensing is not worth much) would qualify for immediate deduction, that the larger deduction for dependents would phase in slowly (and never equal twice the current-law deduction), and that the simplified alternative tax system would be revenue neutral. The last assertion is particularly questionable: few taxpayers will choose to pay an alternative tax if it does not reduce their tax bill, so an optional alternative is only revenue neutral if almost nobody elects it, which is probably not what the candidate has in mind. We estimated the cost of Senator McCain’s plan as described on the stump, assuming that all the provisions are fully effective immediately and that the optional alternative tax system is similar to the one proposed by the Republican Study Committee. Under those assumptions, the revenue loss attributable to the Senator’s plan increases to almost $7 trillion over the 10-year budget window.

Senator Obama says he would subject high-income taxpayers to additional taxes “in the range of 2 to 4 percentage points more in total (combined employer and employee)” starting “a decade or more from now” to help shore up Social Security. Nonetheless, his campaign advisers insist that there is no specific proposal. We estimated the cost of Senator Obama’s proposals assuming that the Social Security proposal would impose a 2 percent income tax surtax on adjusted gross incomes over $250,000 and a 2 percent payroll tax paid by employers on employees’ earnings above that threshold and that all of the provisions-including the higher payroll tax-are fully effective immediately. Under those assumptions, the Senator’s proposals would reduce revenues by $2.6 trillion over 10 years, or about $390 billion less than the proposals as described by his campaign advisers.

(End of excerpt. The entire analysis is available in PDF format.)

There is currently a bill in the house and senate to simplify our tax system and get rid of the IRS, it is called the Fair Tax Act.

Do you know what the FairTax Act is?

* Ensures Social Security and Medicare funding
* Enables workers to keep their entire paychecks
* Enables retirees to keep their entire pensions
* Refunds in advance the tax on purchases of basic necessities
* Allows American products to compete fairly
* Brings transparency and accountability to tax policy
* Closes all loopholes and brings fairness to taxation
* Abolishes the IRS

For more information visit www.fairtax.org.

The United States social security system is bankrupt and the reason is because people are living longer and baby boomers are starting to retire. There have been talks about privatizing social security where the worker gets to decide how much and where to save their money. Currently, the country of Chile has a private social security system and are having great success with it. Did you know that if we privatized social social security and our medicare programs, we could get rid of the income tax and just have a 10% federal sales tax? Anyways, here is how the Chile reformed their social security system.

Chile had a pay-as-you-go system, just like us. But, the pay-as-you-go program is a system that is failing all over the world. Chile knew that they would need to make some major changes like increasing the retirement age and increasing taxes. They understood that the pay-as-you-go system had a fundamental flaw, one rooted in a false conception of how human beings behave. That flaw was lack of a link between what people put into their pension program and what they take out. In a government system, contributions and benefits are unrelated because they are defined politically, by the power of pressure groups.

So they decided to go in the other direction, to link benefits to contributions. The money that a worker pays into the system goes into an account that is owned by the worker. They called the idea a “capitalization scheme.”

They decided that the minimum contribution should be 10 percent of wages. But workers may contribute up to 20 percent. The money contributed is deducted from the worker’s taxable income. The money is invested by a private institution, and the returns are untaxed. By the time a worker reaches retirement age–65 for men, 60 for women–a sizable sum of capital has accumulated in the account. At retirement the worker transforms that lump sum into an annuity with an insurance company. He can shop among different insurance companies to find the plan that best suits his personal and family situation. (He pays taxes when the money is withdrawn but usually at a lower rate than he would have paid when he was working.)

The worker can contribute more than 10 percent if he wants a higher pension or if he wants to retire early. Individuals have different preferences: some want to work until they are 85; others want to go fishing at 55, or 50, or 45, if they can. The uniform pay-as-you-go social security system does not recognize differences in individual preferences. In Chile, those differences had led to pressure on the congress to legislate different retirement ages for different groups. As a result, they had a discriminatory retirement-age system. Blue-collar workers could retire at 65; white-collar workers could retire more or less at 55; bank employees could retire after 25 years of work; and the most powerful group of all, those who make the laws, the congressmen, were able to retire after 15 years of work.

Under the system, you don’t have to pressure anyone. If you want to retire at 55, you go to one of the pension-fund companies and sit in front of a user-friendly computer. It asks you at what age you want to retire. You answer 55. The computer then does some calculations and says that you must contribute 12.1 percent of your income to carry out your plan. You then go back to your employer and instruct him to deduct the appropriate amount. Workers thus translate their personal preferences into tailored pension plans. If a worker’s pension savings are not enough at the legal retirement age, the government makes up the difference from general tax revenue.

The system is managed by competitive private companies called AFPs (from the Spanish for pension fund administrators). Each AFP operates the equivalent of a mutual fund that invests in stocks, bonds, and government debt. The AFP is separate from the mutual fund; so if the AFP goes bankrupt, the assets of the mutual fund–that is, workers’ investments–are not affected. The regulatory board takes over the fund and asks the workers to change to another AFP. Not a dime of the workers’ money is touched in the process. Workers are free to change from one AFP to another. That creates competition among the companies to provide a higher return on investment and better customer service, or to charge lower commissions.

The AFP market opened on May 1, 1981, which is Labor Day in Chile and most of the world. It was supposed to open May 4, but they made a last-minute change to May 1. And why did they do that? José Piñera, who as Chile’s minister of labor, explained that May 1 had always been celebrated all over the world as a day of class confrontation, when workers fight employers as if their interests were completely divergent. But in a free-market economy, their interests are convergent. “Let’s begin this system on May 1,” he said, “so that in the future, Labor Day can be celebrated as a day when workers freed themselves from the state and moved to a privately managed capitalization system.”

Today they have 20 AFPs. No AFP has gone bankrupt. Workers have not lost a dime. They created a regulatory body that, along with the central bank, set some investment diversification rules. Funds cannot invest more than x percent in government bonds, y percent in private companies’ debentures, or z percent in common stocks. Nor can more than a specified amount be in the stock of any given company, and all companies in which funds are invested must have credit ratings above a given level.

They set up such transitional rules with a bias for safety because the plan was to be radical (even revolutionary) in approach but conservative and prudent in execution. They trusted the private sector, but we did not want to be stupid either. They knew that there were companies that might invest in derivatives and lose a lot of money. They didn’t want the pension funds investing workers’ money in derivatives in Singapore. If the system had failed in the first years, they would never have been able to try it again. So they set strict rules, but they are relaxing those rules. For example, only three years ago they began to allow the funds to invest abroad, which they weren’t allowed to do initially, because Chilean institutions had no experience in investing abroad. They say though that the rules will be more flexible someday.

Also during the transition to the new system, they began by assuring every retired worker that the state would guarantee his pension; he had absolutely nothing to fear from the change. Pension reform should not damage those who have contributed all their lives. Even if it took a constitutional amendment.

Second, the workers already in the workforce, who had contributed to the state system, were given the option of staying in the system even though they thought its future was problematic. Those who moved to the new system received what they called a “recognition bond,” which acknowledges their contributions to the old system. When those workers retire, the government will cash the bonds.

New workers have to go into the new private system because the old system is bankrupt. Thus, the old system will inevitably die on the day that the last person who entered that system passes away. On that day the government will have no pension system whatsoever. The private system is not a complementary system; it is a replacement that they believed would be more efficient.

The real transition cost of the system is the money the government ceases to obtain from the workers who moved to the new system, because the government is committed to pay the pensions of the people already retired and of those who will retire in the future. That transition cost can be calculated. In Chile it was around 3 percent of gross national product. How they financed it is another story. It would be done differently in each country. Suffice it to say that even though governments have enormous pension liabilities, they also have enormous assets. In Chile they had state-owned enterprises. They calculated the real balance sheet and, knowing there were enough assets, financed the transition without raising tax rates, generating inflation, or pressuring interest rates upward. In the last several years they have had a fiscal surplus of 1 to 2 percent of GNP.

The main goal and consequence of the pension reform is to improve the lot of workers during their old age. The reform has a lot of side effects: savings, growth, capital markets. The reform was enacted to assure workers decent pensions so that they can enjoy their old age in tranquility. That goal has been met already. Currently the system is paying old-age pensions that are 40 to 50 percent higher than those paid under the old system. (In the case of disability and survivor pensions, another privatized insurance, pensions are 70 to 100 percent higher than under the old system.)

But there have been other enormous effects. A second and extremely important one is that the new system reduces what can be called the payroll tax on labor. The social security contribution was seen by workers and employers as basically a tax on the use of labor; and a tax on the use of labor reduces employment. But a contribution to an individual’s pension account is not seen as a tax on the use of labor. Unemployment in Chile is less than 5 percent. And that is without disguised unemployment in the federal government. They are approaching what could be called full employment in Chile.

Chile’s private pension system has been the main factor in increasing the savings rate to the level of an Asian tiger. Their rate is 26 percent of GNP, compared to about 15 percent in Latin America. The Asian tigers are at 30 percent. The dramatic increase in the savings rate is the main reason that Chile is not suffering from the so-called tequila effect that plagues Mexico. They do not depend on short-run capital flows because they have an enormous pool of internal savings to finance their investment strategies. Chile has been isolated from short-run capital movement because its development is basically rooted in a high savings rate.

Pension reform has contributed strongly to the growth of their economy. Because growth increases employment and wages. Several experts have attributed the positive growth rate to the private pension system.

Finally, the private pension system has had a very important political and cultural consequence. Ninety percent of Chile’s workers chose to move into the new system. They moved faster than Germans going from East to West after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Those workers freely decided to abandon the state system, even though some of the trade-union leaders and the old political class advised against it. But workers are able to make wise decisions on matters close to their lives, such as pensions, education, and health.

Every Chilean worker knows that he is the owner of an individual pension account. They have calculated that the typical Chilean worker’s main asset is not his small house or his used car but the capital in his pension account. The Chilean worker is an owner, a capitalist. There is no more powerful way to stabilize a free-market economy and to get the support of the workers than to link them directly to the benefits of the market economy. When Chile grows at 5 percent or when the stock market doubles, Chilean workers benefit directly, not only through higher wages, not only through more employment, but through additional capital in their individual pension accounts.

Private pensions are undoubtedly creating cultural change. When workers feel that they own a fraction of a country, not through the party bosses, not through a politburo (like the Russians thought), but through ownership of part of the financial assets of the country, they are much more attached to the free market, a free society, and democracy.

By taking politicians out of the social security business they have done them a great favor because they can now focus on what they should do: stop crime, run a good justice system, manage foreign affairs–the real duties of a government. By removing the government from social security, they have accomplished the biggest privatization in Chilean history–someone even called it, paraphrasing Saddam Hussein, the mother of all privatizations, because it has allowed them to go on to privatize the energy and telecommunications companies.

Jose Pinera says “Of course, there have been some mistakes. There are some things that should be improved. There is no perfect reform. With time and experience, I know I would do some things differently. But on the whole, I can tell you that it has been a success beyond all our dreams.”

This information was taken from an article at The Cato Institute.

A reader recently sent me an article on the Libertarian party, it’s growth and how it affects the Presidential election. Also in the article it shows that Libertarians are basically all over the map on issues. Here is an excerpt from the article:

What do Libertarians believe?
As befitting a party with the word “liberty” embedded in its name, Libertarians prize individual freedom above all, and believe that government should play the smallest possible role in the economy and in people’s lives. “Think of us,” the Libertarian Party declares on its official website, “as a group of people with a ‘live and let live’ mentality and a balanced checkbook.” Though their symbol is the Statue of Liberty, Libertarians also identify with the porcupine, whose prickliness underscores one of their favorite mottoes, “The right to be left alone.”

As I read through this article: Briefing: The rise of the Libertarians and I decided that I would list what I support:

I support the Bill of Rights: One thing that I feel really strong on is separation of church and state. I can’t stand when these politicians get involved with religious communities. I can’t stand that “In God We Trust” is on our currency. I can’t stand when they sing “God Bless America” during the 7th inning of baseball games. It’s a nice song, but I’m just not down with it. And I cant stand “One nation under god” in the Pledge of Allegiance. Did you know the Knights of Columbus in New York City felt that the pledge was incomplete without any reference to a deity. Appealing to the authority of Abraham Lincoln, the Knights felt that the words “under God” which were from Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address were most appropriate to add to the Pledge. In New York City on April 22, 1951, the Board of Directors of the Knights of Columbus adopted a resolution to amend their recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance at the opening of each of the meetings of the 800 Fourth Degree Assemblies of the Knights of Columbus by addition of the words “under God” after the words “one nation.”

I support gay marriages and adoption. I just blogged about this so need to explain.

I support abortion rights: It’s a nice population controller, plus, I feel that teenagers have no business having babies due to maturity reasons. Also if a woman was raped and she becomes pregnant with that monsters baby.

I support euthanasia which would allow a person to end their life in dignity after having received every available type of medical care and their condition has not or will not improve.

I am not much of a supporter on medical research on finding cures for cancer, AIDS and etc. I do support privately funded but not government funded research. I just recently post an article on the Jimmy V Foundation for Cancer Research because ESPN runs this once a year. But, I feel that we need disease as a population controller. I consider my self “pro-death”.

I support to abolish the IRS for a simpler tax system. When we pay income tax, we are basically being forced to pay for someone who doesn’t want to be responsible for their life. I believe that we should not be taxed on our incomes, but on goods and services. Think about it for a second. Say for instance we had a 23% tax on goods and services. Well, wealthy people buy more and expensive items, so they will be the ones that get hurt the most in paying the tax. Also, we have approximately 12 million illegal immigrants who live here in the U.S. and do not pay tax. Well, they will have no choice in paying tax now since it will be on consumables. Visit www.fairtax.org.

I support the “War on Terror”. I’ll tell you what, most Americans don’t think that terrorism is a major issue. Well, when the day comes when they bring a nuke up in here, it’s going to make for a far worse day than 9/11. Whatever city gets hit with it, you are gonna see hundreds of thousands of Americans looking like fried chicken running around. And that’s because we have failed to acknowledge that there is a radical Islamic movement that hates us. It’s all about some stupid ass religion. I’d rather get shot in the head and robbed by some scum bag than die at the hands of some stupid ass religious martyr. I refuse to die for anyone’s freak ass religion.

I do not support the “War on Drugs”. It wastes $46 billion a year on taxpayer money. I’m a proponent of decriminalizing drugs and offering non-violent drug offenders rehabilitation. Hell, I’m all for legalizing and regulating drugs. The U.S. actually condones idiocy and I’m all for it. Go ahead and do your coke, heroin, meth and etc. Just don’t be bringing that shit out of your home or in front of kids. It’s just like don’t drink and drive. Kill yourself with it for all I care, we need population reduction anyways. Marijuana definitely needs to get legalized. More and more states are starting to decriminalize it. I feel that alcohol abuse is more devastating than being a pot smoker. I was never big on the old pot, but I drank, believe me I drank myself close to death.

I support education vouchers for our children. Our kids should have the choice of what school they want to attend. This should not be handled by the federal government. This should be handled by state and local governments.

I do not support a universal healthcare system. Socialized healthcare systems that exist are all failing. The taxpayers of these systems feel the pain from this. Also, you do not get the greatest healthcare in these systems, because there are not enough doctors to handle the influx of people coming in. So you get long waiting lines for medical services. People need to start putting money into Health Saving Accounts.

I do not support in having many entitlement programs. I understand people do lose jobs, people become disabled and they do need help. But there is a huge portion of Americans out there who abuse these systems and refuse to apply or reapply themselves to take responsibility of their lives.

I support legalizing prostitution. You make them take a test for disease every week and you make them pay income tax. If we had the fair tax, then it would be alot easier to collect taxes from them.

I support reduction of immigration to the U.S. We are the only country in the world that allows the type of immigration we do. We immigrate over 1 million people a year. We need to have stricter laws on illegal immigrants also. Illegal immigrants are invaders not citizens.

I support privatizing Social Security. Social Security is bankrupt and when I retire in 33 years I will never see it. We need to have personal retirement accounts. America, it’s time to start saving and stop spending. We need to become savers. The way that private Social Security would work is that the Government would force employers to offer basically almost a 401k type plan where you are forced to put a certain percentage of income into this retirement account, you pick what you want to invest in and that’s it, the money is YOURS! It doesn’t go into a big pot, where everyone is putting their grubby hands into.

I JUST WANT THE FREEDOM OF CHOICE!

Did you know that every day, for the next 20 years 10,000 Americans will become eligible for Social Security benefits? And the question is: How will WE pay for this? I will try to refrain from the usage of “government pay” because it is the taxpayers that pay.

Recently Rep. Paul Ryan, a Republican from Wisconsin, asked the Congressional Budget Office to determine by how much marginal tax rates would have to increase to pay for entitlement spending over the coming decades.

The CBO says marginal tax rates for every bracket, along with corporate tax rates, would have to more than double. In doing this, the CBO determined it “would significantly reduce economic activity and create serious problems with tax avoidance and tax evasion.” The CBO warned, such rates “would probably not be economically feasible.”

If our government tries to borrow money to pay for entitlements, the CBO says, we’ll run up unsustainable debt by 2050. In short, we would destroy our nation’s economy. Income would stop growing and, by the late 2040s, actually start to contract. Hell, I think we are already in the middle of destroying our economy right now. What I can’t believe is how ignorant Americans are. They are willing to destroy the economy of this country to support their own ass and to destroy the future of this country for their children and grand children. How pathetic. We have absolutely no common sense in this country.

Anyways, here are a couple of ideas on to fix this problem:

* It’s time to start raising the retirement age. Social Security started in 1935 and people that started receiving it were lucky enough to live to 65. But now, we are a lot healthier and living longer. We’ve made major medical advances to prolong life. And our population continues to grow. I on the other hand am actually “pro-death”. We need disease, the right to abortion and the right to euthanasia. Sounds a little rough, but I’m “dead” serious, no pun intended.

* We need to have personal retirement accounts. America, it’s time to start saving and stop spending. We need to become savers. The way that private Social Security would work is that the Government would force employers to offer basically almost a 401k type plan where you are forced to put a certain percentage of income into this retirement account, you pick what you want to invest in and that’s it, the money is YOURS! It doesn’t go into a big pot, where everyone is putting their grubby hands into. I have plenty of links for you to check out and they all have great information.

* The last thing that will help with our Social Security issue is passing the FairTax Act. Do you know what the FairTax Act is?

* Ensures Social Security and Medicare funding
* Enables workers to keep their entire paychecks
* Enables retirees to keep their entire pensions
* Refunds in advance the tax on purchases of basic necessities
* Allows American products to compete fairly
* Brings transparency and accountability to tax policy
* Closes all loopholes and brings fairness to taxation
* Abolishes the IRS

Visit www.fairtax.org to find out more.

Read the full Washington Times article on Social Security.

The history of Social Security. Link.

Get the facts on Social Security reform. Link.

In the 1980’s, Galveston County, Texas created a privatized Social Security through a loop hole before Congress blocked that hole. This is a must read! Link.

I just recently blogged about Obama wanting to “extend the life of social security” and make the wealthy “pay their fair share”. Well I came across an article on exactly how Obama’s policy will impact the wealthy and the government. This is a must read. Link.

In response to President Bush’s call for drilling for our own oil. The Democrats have called for nationalizing oil refineries. LMAO! These guys are crazy. Think about it people, government would have control of oil! Come on, when was the last time that our government did anything right? Social Security is bankrupt, socialized health care spending is out of control, government schools suck and we want to trust government with this? Somehow I believe that this is not the way to go.

This is the first steps into becoming a communist nation. We’ve already become a socialized nation. Then when government wants to start operating the oil business, they will start getting involved into other businesses. This is very dangerous. I can’t believe that we have Americans that actually vote for these bastards. Does anyone remember Ronald Reagan and his entire 8 years was spent fighting the Cold War with Russia? Did we forget everything that we learned in school about how this great country was created? America, I’ve said it before, stop watching that damn liberal television, that shit is brainwashing you. We’ve got a bunch of zombies running around here without a clue about anything.

WE THE PEOPLE ARE “F’D” Story.

Several weeks ago I did an article on how much we as a nation had spent on socialized welfare in the country in 2005. Well, here are the official numbers from 2006 on our socialized programs that we pay federal, state and local tax on:

These numbers are based against the 2005 numbers

We spent $783 billion in health care (Medicaid and Medicare), which was up $47 billion. 23% of federal spending goes to health care which is an increase from 6% back in 1975. And you know what…it will continue to rise.

We spent $548 billion in social security, which was up $25 billion

And finally, we spent $403 billion in welfare, which was up $41 billion

For a grand total of $1.734 Trillion in socialized welfare for the country. It looks like this $1,734,000,000,000.00.

We spent $521 billion on armed forces, which was up $26 billion

The total federal, state and local spending for 2006 was $4.704 Trillion which was up $300 billion.

We spent 37% of our total budget on socialized welfare in the country. When we get to 50%, you mine as well call us The Union of the United Socialist States of America. Wonderful!

We are so “F’d”.

Well here is the link if you want a more in depth look at government spending. Link.

Obama was in Pennsylvania and here is some of his key points and my comments are below each point he makes:

* $1,000 tax cut for most working families
What does he mean by most families? Are we talking a certain total household income or people living at or below poverty level?

* Social Security tax on incomes above $250,000
Rob from the rich and give to the poor. This guy thinks he’s Robin Hood of Sherwood Forest in Nottinghamshire! This is the real world brotha, just tell the American people the truth that there is no money left in Social Security.

* A “windfall profits” tax on oil companies.
Go ahead jackass, keep taxing major corporations and there will be no corporations left here to tax. This country runs on and needs corporate America, we can’t keep penalizing companies for making profits. Just remember, the people that make the money off the profits are the shareholders, people that have IRA’s and Mutual Funds, people like me and you.

* A $4,000 annual college tuition credit for those who commit to national or community service programs
Where the hell is he going to get the money for this? Oh yeah, I forgot, he’s Robin Hood.

* And an end to income taxes for elderly people making less than $50,000 a year.
No, this is not going to fly with me because we already have the so called “less fortunate” who don’t pay tax. People nowadays are healthier and living longer, just because your old, doesn’t mean you get a break either. Maybe we could give you a free bottle of Geritol.

Then this one is the kicker because I had mentioned this in a previous blog that I posted several days ago, he must have someone visiting my site. Here is what he said taken exactly from the article:

He said employers should be required to set up retirement saving plans for workers even if they contribute no money to them. Workers would automatically be enrolled unless they choose to opt out, he said. That way, he said, “most people will save more.”

Here was my idea:

Anyways, the way that private Social Security would work is that the Government would force employers to offer basically almost a 401k type plan where you are forced to put a certain percentage of income into this retirement account, you pick what you want to invest in and that’s it, the money is YOURS! It doesn’t go into a big pot, where everyone is putting their grubby hands into. I have plenty of links for you to check out and they all have great information.

Here is the link to the my entire blog about Social Security. Link.

But I still have another idea for Social Security. What if we had a choice with our employers. We could elect to either have Social Security taken out or if we choose to have a type of 401k option, we wouldn’t have to pay Social Security tax because we would be funding our own retirement or if you are afraid of getting involved with the stock market then you could elect to have a high yield savings account to put money into and still be exempt from having to pay Social Security tax.

If we went to something like this and your saying to yourself “Well I’m 32 years old and I’ve been working since I was 14 and I want to choose the high yield savings account to put my money into then what happens to the Social Security tax that I’ve paid into?”. Well, you would get what you deserve, obviously you wouldn’t get the full amount that you would have received if you did keep paying into social security until age 65, but you would get compensated whatever the difference is.

Support The Fair Tax Act, it would be a lot easier just to have one flat tax rate for EVERYONE! Link.

Here is the full story about Obama’s visit to Pennsylvania. Link.