It seems we have accepted the right wing view of the world? We've conceded that we ought to eliminate SocSec., Medicare, and even unemployment benefits. After all, the rich don't want any of this --- too costly for them. We let them raid their corporation pension plans, 'cause regulation of them was too onerous and the money sitting there would be better used providing checks for the Bain Capital folks and other corporate raiders. Can't wait to see what Mitt has waiting for the rest of us.

In fact, these Republicans/Tea partiers don't like the cost of any government: financial regulation, the cost of clean air, the cost of food monitoring, the cost of public supported health care, or the cost of environmental monitoring. (They recently conceded that they can only bring up a few items at a time, or else they will scare away middle America. But in time, my friends, in time, they will strip away every protection you have won over the years.)

It's an interesting case they make. Yeah, let's dismantle and eliminate the costs of government. We'll fend for ourselves, like the good old days (that never were as good as imagined). Only the wealthy and healthy and young survive their Darwinian USA. (Well, at least those who are wealthy.)

In their world view, everything that helps us is simply too costly. Apparently they see no costs to an unbalanced society, where the poor already vastly outnumber their wealthy friends and have been armed to the teeth by their NRA supporters. They have convinced themselves it is really cheaper to clean up an economy in tatters -- I mean under a real depression? We'll worry when the oceans of oil or a sickened population are upon us. Hey, once the environment, the plants, the animals are dead . . they're dead. But we'll move to the moon?

But so what. We're living through yet another example of conservative wishful thinking. Ask the Japanese who cheated to avoid the cost of environmental controls, or the Middle East rulers who let their people starve while they piled up excess wealth. The future will only be as bad as you make it by trying to avoid the real costs of progress. But that's the conservative way, isn't it? Create a disaster and find some way to blame anyone but the guy in the mirror. Cowards? Fools? Greedy? or just stupid? And I don't mean them . . . I mean us . . . for refusing to vote with our brains.

Alan, you realize the "banker bailouts" known as TARP have all been paid back with interest, right?? Don't let the facts get in the way of good Dem rhetoric.

Have the following been paid back to the US taxpayer: GM- NO, Freddie Mac - NO, Fannie Mae-NO, Solyndra- NO (bankrupt), a dozen other "green" gambles - NO..... get the idea.

Stay focused on the real issues not the Organizing For (Against) America / DNC talking points and gather / validate the true facts.

Just D Fact

You are correct about TARP. However you have ignored the billions of taxpayer dollars shoveled to the banksters through AIG. Don't forget to add in all of the money loaned to the banks at essentially 0% interest rate. This was loaned back to the government or consumers at a profit. TARP was only a small part of the money given to the banks.

This isn't a conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat issue. Some small social security payments that kick in when someone's no longer able to work are necessary; medicare and medicaid likewise necessary.

Tort reform with significant limits on damages from botched surgeries and drugs could drive down the cost of malpractice insurance, and subsequently healthcare for everyone (all should understand the utilitarian trade-off here).

We can end the cap on SS taxed income (liberal backers need to understand this revenue source adjustment changes SS from an entitlement to a handout) and also raise the eligibility age into the 70s unless disability is proven. That should make the program solvent and won't hurt the middle class.

Other than the above ideas, how can I respect someone's desire to relax in their old age unless they respected themselves enough to set money aside for their own old age?

Make the angry comments about how this was out of your control or you were promised one thing and delivered another. You are the only one who cares about your plans and dreams enough to have done something about it.

The number of people who actually lived as hapless victims for whom retirement savings was actually out of their control is going to be similar to the number of people who are obese for medical conditions genuinely out of their control.

Vote Democrat - Romney is itching to fire up the War Machine again.

I don't know about you but I would gladly trade the billions we spent on nuclear weapons (only to destroy later in a treaty) for the ability to retire at 60.

Also, shouldn't Kuwait and Iraqi oil be funding our retirements since we "rescued" them with our billions in war dollars?

It's not that we don't have the money - it's that we don't know how to spend it!

If you want to talk about repukealans and teapugs getting in the way of retirement, how much have they hurt retirement plans? I'm still paying 10% of my income in SS, Medicare, and Medicaid part D to help others retire. That's more then I put away each month in my 401K. Why is it the government's responsibility to help people retire?

You've got that right Bill in Austin. That's why when I retire in about 10 years I'm planning to move overseas. The Republicans are determined to destroy the middle class in this country and many in the middle class are more than happy to help them. I think a Romney presidency would be the last nail in the American coffin.

Rev- you didn't answer the question about GM, Solyndra, or any of the others. typical liberal , duck and run when the facts look too damaging. then surface again later and spread more lies.

alan - there is no talking with the spoiled rotten neighborhood kid.

gaithersburger - the biggest issue facing the middle class today is the massive deficit and uncontrollable spending. the middle class will end up shouldering the burden. Obama is incapable of fixing the deficit. you can't spend your way out of a deficit.

Republicans want to end social security, medicare and medicaid. Plain and simple.

Sure, they'll say "we are protecting it, fixing it, ensuring it stays around"...blah, blah, blah. When in fact, that is not their intention at all. They will privatize it, and when markets fail, people will be dying in the streets.

So, you take hard working people that have paid into social security their whole life and tell them, "you can't have your money, just suck it up".

If you spent what we spent in Iraq for one year and put that into social security the problem is solved.

Since when did waging war become more important than taking care of the elderly.

I am a independent; However;

It was the democrats that took social security out of the Old age and disability trust. )LBJ)

It was the democrats that decided to fund Medicaid from medicare dedicated taxes.

It was the democrats that decided to tax social security payments(Gore cast the Tye breaking vote)

It was the democrats that stopped cola increases for social security payments)

Now all the funds are gone and the democrats are blaming the Republicans, wow.

Bill, regarding pensions being raided, you do know the politicians in DC have plans to raid your 401k, right? Social Security has over $7 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities. How do you think that is going to be made up?

I love all the bickering back and forth about Democrats and Republicans. Proof that "divide and conquer" continues to work. I feel sorry for future generations.

saxon-you're the most right wing independent in history. It is now the Republicans-Ryan's budget-who want to give tax breaks to the rich and corporations while they cut the social safety net. We paid into social security and medicare and will not be told-sorry, the rich need that money more than you peasants do.

I think you need to finish your work on that time machine and go back and "independently" fix all those Democrat errors.

Gee, it's Democratic (faux) talking point day. What a joke....but here is the bottom line.

1. Companies stopped having pension plans as they were unsustainable due to workers living longer on the pension than they worked for the company and due to the pension money invested never paid out as much as the brokers said it would. Rather than be irresponsible and continue to offer a plan that would never pay, companies moved to other devices, (IRA, 401) to bridge the gap. Only the Unions and the govt. can "afford" these plans, but the Union is crashing, and the American people are sick of paying for rich benefit plans for govt. workers that are not available in the private sector due to common sense. 1+1=2, not 4.

2. SS and Medicare will be broke long before I am able to retire. The govt. has borrowed and mismanaged these funds far too long. Another alternative is needed. Just because the Republicans talk about privatization, the Democrats are ready with scare tactics saying "Ending" instead of of "Privatization." the Democrats are only interested in scaring the American public to do their bidding. I would prefer to hear intelligent debate and intelligent plans rather than scare tactics.

3. Bottom line, I have to work until I die, which will be sooner than I originally planned due to govt. incompetence through trust fund mis-management and Obamacare.

realist, many independents are staunch fiscal conservatives, like myself. If the government is going to take my money, it darn well better use it as efficiently as possible.

My economic philosophy is almost perfectly in line with that of John F. Kennedy, who if currently President, would probably be despised by liberals.

http://www.wnd.com/2004/07/25640/

Do you see a theme here?

People crying about what others can do for their retirement. This is the common American mentality now. If someone else doesn't secure my retirement for me it will never happen.

I have been saving and investing since I was 18 for retirement, I am 34 now and have over $300,000 saved. I did it, not a politician, bank, or corporation.

Quit crying and start planning people. If you don't have a plan you only have excuses. That's the problem with politics. Politicians know Americans love excuses and they make more of them everyday just to get your vote.

The Reagan administration basically sold us out in order to reap short term profits from creating debt to pay for inflation. The major product of our corporations, since Reagan, has been stock value - not goods or services. Our government's policies over the last 30 years has been to allow corporations to manipulate stock valuation and to grow financial services and Wall Street.

We no longer save - we invest. Banks no longer pay us to use our money - we pay banks to use our money. We no longer purchase based on earnings - we purchase based on credit limits. We no longer plan our futures - we live paycheck to paycheck.

We put the health of our nation's economy into the hands of financial planners. We have been rewarding risk instead of work for the last 30 years. How has that worked for us?

Social Security supposedly will 'run out of money' in 20 years. Over those 20 years, Social Security will collect around $15.5 trillion in FICA taxes, receive another $2 trillion in interest on the OASDI trust, and holds $3 trillion in government bonds in the OASDI trust. Over the next 20 years - Social Security will have consumed around $20 trillion.

Currently, there is $17 trillion of retirement assets invested on the financial markets. $5 trillion are personal assets - IRA, 401k plans - and $12 trillion are in managed pension funds. Those managed pension funds will be paying defined benefits - just as Social Security does.

How can Wall Street 'investments' be sound with $12 trillion and Social Security be 'doomed to extinction' with $20 trillion available?

The doom and gloom being pushed in the press is to scare you into dumping more money onto Wall Street. From my perspective - retirement 'investing' in IRA and 401k plans is just as sound as Social Security.

If you really believe Social Security will not be there - Wall Street faces the exact same problem.

Other than the above ideas, how can I respect someone's desire to relax in their old age unless they respected themselves enough to set money aside for their own old age?

So just how much is "enough?" My brother's 401 disappeared two years ago in the recession, he's been unemployed for almost two years, he has serious medical issues, and he's not eligible for Medicare yet. So that's where his retirement savings have gone. And he's a year from being able to collect SS.

Nerm: the issue is not that the funds won't be there, its that the Republican party wants to kill them off, just like they prefer to kill off the elderly and the poor. "I don't care about the very poor" is not just a line from Mitt Romney, its a theme from the GOP.

Take a hard look at the GOP budget. Reduced spending on all areas which aid the poor and lower middle class, while increasing spending in areas which aid the weatlhy. Tax cuts to the weatlhy (who DO NOT create jobs in the US) who truly do not need incentive to make more money.

The GOP is just full of sick, evil, greedy people.

@dirp -- The Republicans are not trying to 'kill off' Social Security - they are desperately trying to divert Social Security onto Wall Street.

It is not rocket science to see that Wall Street is going to collapse because Wall Street is faced with more withdrawals than contributions - just like Social Security. What happens to the financial markets if there are more sellers than buyers?

The United States is not going to be able to create enough new debt to keep Wall Street going, either. The economy is regulating itself - consumers are no longer willing to create debt simply to pay for inflation. If inflation increases too quickly - the economy deflates. That is why we are seeing slow growth - and - continued high unemployment.

America no longer believes we can borrow our way to prosperity. Austerity controls our government policy and our personal decisions.

If you think Wall Street is not aware of the coming collapse - consider that 401k plans were allowed to set up automatic enrollment in 2005. Instead of allowing you to choose to participate in the 401k plan - you now must choose not to participate.

401k plans have been restructured based on age groupings - you no longer choose the amount of risk you wish to assume - your choice is based on your age. Younger people are automatically placed in high risk investments.

Fund managers are no longer investing in the funds that they manage - possibly because of the risks associated with those funds.

Wall Street has grown simply because there have been more buyers than sellers. IRA and 401k assets currently amount to $5 trillion invested on financial markets. That is around 8 to 10 pct of the asset value of the financial markets. The entire $17 trillion of retirement assets (IRAs, 401k, pension plans) invested on Wall Street is more than 25 pct of the value of the market.

Wall Street is going to be needing a lot of cash to simply survive over the next 20 years.

Why is it the government's responsibility to help people retire?

Alan_Static, are you serious? You obviously were born yesterday and flunked American History. Prior to 1938, there was no Social Security for the elderly. Congress created the Social Security Insurance System as a minimal safety net for the elderly. Later Congress passed The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) which established minimum standards for pension plans in private industry. This brought the private sector into the 20th century and on a par with the public sector. These are 2 very good reasons why it's the government's responsibility to help people to retire. It's the LAW.

Just_D_Facts

Alan, you realize the "banker bailouts" known as TARP have all been paid back with interest, right?? Don't let the facts get in the way of good Dem rhetoric.

$132.9 Billion Still Owed to Tax Payers From Bailout

Here is the magnitude of the problem. The estimate is that 80 million people will be eligible for retirement over the next 20 years. That is 23 pct of our current population. One out of every two current workers will be eligible for retirement over the next 20 years. That averages to 10,000 people per day, 300,000 people per month, every month, for the next 20 years.

Economists tell us we need 125,000 new jobs each month to keep up with population growth. Yet, 300,000 per month will be leaving the workforce - on average.

The economy has reached an inflection point. The politics of the past - the economics of the past - do not address that new normal. The coming economy does have obstacles - but - also presents tremendous opportunity. Attempting to 'save' the old economy is not going to solve our problems.

As a nation, we need to become aware of how our economy and society are going to change - and - plan for that future. The future for the younger generations is far, far brighter than is being forecast.

Why is it the government's responsibility to help people retire?

Because that's what we've paid them to do. It's not the government's responsibility to FUND retirements.

I expect to pay FICA and SS tax thru my work life. Since i don't want to be shopping around for a doctor while I'm on my back with a broken leg, or heart attack, I've paid the government to insure the doctor and/or hospital gets paid. i also expect the government to have INVESTED my SS taxes so that I get an annuity for life when I've met the requirements to retire (my age and numbers of quarters worked).

It wasn't my fault the Congress, over the many years, spent those taxes. Get off your a**es and fix it. Now, because I, and others, know reality, and pretended not to know that politicians are ignorant slime buckets, I'm willing to chip in a little to offset some of those lost investments, however, that's going to be very little (perhaps a small rise in the retirement age eligibility) and NEVER expect me, or others, to let you change this into some voucher program that let's all these crooks get away with stealing our money, while we have to pay for it. Get rid of every benefit the Congress has, spend less on defense, spend less on foreign aid, BEFORE you think about touching the plans we have paid into, and for shifting this to us to take care of.

That's why it's the governments responsibility to help people retire, and don't forget it! And, BTW, saving as an individual with a 401K, etc., has NOTHING to do with this.

401k plans have been restructured based on age groupings - you no longer choose the amount of risk you wish to assume - your choice is based on your age. Younger people are automatically placed in high risk investments.

Nerm, that's just patently false. Any 401K (or defined contribution plan) that's been vested (in other words, it's your money if you leave employment), is invested the way YOU want it to. It can be held in a default account only if you fail to pick an investment fund yourself, but that default fund must be a diversified fund...usually a target retirement date fund. Yes, the younger you are, the more stocks that will be held in that "default fund" (but it still has some bonds), but you are always allowed to invest in the available fund(s) of your choice, or even cash, if you choose.

Nerm: I beg to differ with you about 401(k) plans and risk being based on age. My company has our 401K plans in T. Rowe Price. It's MY option how I want to have my money distributed. I chose the low risk, high yield choice because I'm 66 years old and plan on retiring in about 11 years (as long as I'm healthy, I'm working). So far, I'm averaging 6.8% growth per year...my investments are in mutual funds/bond funds (no stocks). I could allow it to grow a little faster if I decided to take some additional risk, which I may, but so far I'm doing fine. Additionally, I'm one of those lucky people who works for a company that still provides an employer-paid pension plan. Of course, my company is a privately-held company, so they don't have to deal with stockholders, etc. I consider myself extremely lucky because the company also matches my 401(K) monies each year.

The trend in 401k offerings I have seen since 2005 were restructured based on age demographics - with younger age groups comprised of a higher risk portfolio. Automatic enrollment has been directed toward the default option according to age demographic. The restructured plans were not marketed according to risk - they were marketed on the basis of 'growth potential' and age. The vesting requirements established by employers encourages growth potential (higher risk) to encourage employee retention - so new employees are sometimes provided fewer low risk choices.

An employer selects the type of 401k plan that is offered and sets company policy on how the 401k plan is administered. The 401k plans are created and managed by financial firms offering a suite of products to employers. That is no different than how an employer provides health insurance - by selecting an insurance provider and types of products to be offered.

I am pointing out the trends I have observed with 401k plans offered by various financial firms. Your specific plan could very well be different.

Nerm, I don't know where you are getting your 401k information, but clearly either you don't have one or have negociated into a really terrible one, because I am in my 20's and I can put my 401k contributions into a number of funds from low risk to high risk, stocks, bonds, precious metals, ect in any distribution I choose.

Great for you - you have a wonderful 401k plan offered by your employer.

I have seen other plans that were not so wonderful. From my perspective - any investment in risk funds are sucker bets, right now.

Everyone is trying to describe how their 401k operates. I am not trying to tell you what has been offered. I am trying to show you what the financial industry is moving toward in the future.

Is your insurance coverage the same as it was ten years ago - or - even 5 years ago? I have seen some of the changes I have described already take place in some 401k plans. My last employer restructured its 401k offering to incorporate more than what I have described - and - required employees to roll their existing 401k to the new structure. That was the plan put in place by the financial firm that managed the program - not by the employer.

Expect changes to 401k plans just as we have already seen changes in insurance plans.

Severed-his 401k should be worth marginally less than it was in 2007 if it was diversified. If not, then at least the system works and he gets SS in a year. We'll never have equality in outcomes, and some people (myself included) may one day catch a string of bad breaks that make our retirement less than luxurious. That doesn' t change the reality of anything I said.

Nerm-you've made some good points about the fundamentals of investing and retirement changing for everyone, but you may not understand how the stock market works. Corporations with strong cash flows may fluctuate greatly in value due to the number of people and amount of money available to invest, but as long as they have a profitable business model, they will be able to reward investors with positive dividend payments or stock value over time. This is a fundamental difference with social security.

@relaxdontdoit -- The value of publicly traded stock is set by trading price - by the mix of buyers and sellers. Period. Dividends, P/E ratios, and the rest may induce a buyer to select one stock over another. You are correct that dividends are determined by the technical health of the company - but - dividends do not set trading price.

The key point in trading price is having buyers. As I have tried to point out - there may be more sellers than buyers in the future simply due to age demographics. The last market crash lowered trading price and stock value of many companies with healthy technical data - simply because there were more sellers than buyers. The collapse of Lehman triggered a lot of selling - and - Lehman was only $40 billion.

Social Security is backed by the entire monetary system - controlled by government. Wall Street is on its own when it crashes. What will happen when the financial markets need to distribute $1 trillion per year over a twenty year period? That represents at least a 1.5 pct down market every year for twenty years - on average.

Wall Street is going to need cash - going to need buyers. Retirement investing has been the cash cow that has propped up the markets. With the projected number of retirements over the next 20 years - that cash cow may be drying up. When is the next crash coming? If I were young again - I would be more concerned about the safety of investments on financial markets than I would be about Social Security.

Nerm, you couldn't be more mistaken. A corporation such as XOM, Exxon Mobile has $40B cash flow per year. They offer a healthy dividend and are far more "sustainable" than the US gov. If the stock value falls below a certain level, then the dividend and cash flow offer increasingly ridiculous real monetary returns to the investor.

Unlike SS, there is an actual good being created and sold to people who need that good to function. Heck, all you need for XOM to thrive is people somewhere in the world still needing oil and still driving cars.

For you to be correct at all about money leaving wall street, society would have to stop consuming consumer goods. Gov tax revenue would reach $0 before this would happen.

Nerm, I failed to answer your example-Lehman went bankrupt not because no one would buy. No one would buy because Lehman's assets were falling in value rapidly, and it was leveraged to purchased those assets.

In other words, Lehman was worth less than $0 before people stopped buying it. Not the other way around.

I was born during a time of great self indulgence. That self centered society is aging - and - will mostly be dead 30 years from now. Children today - our society's future - are not nearly as self centered as was my generation. The future is far, far brighter than being forecast by those that are already dead but will not accept that.

The comments about how great 401ks and stocks and financial investment are fail to recognize a very clear point about that self indulgent financial system. They receive 'returns' and 'dividends' and 'stock value' - without having contributed anything tangible. They do not buy stocks directly from a company - those stocks are bought from investment banks and trading firms. The buyers have contributed nothing of tangible value toward creating a company's dividend - yet expect to receive a share of the reward.

Providing reward to people that contribute nothing tangible - is simply not sustainable. That is the conservative view - that is what the 'shareholders' tell us about government - yet they engage in the same activity.

The demographics show that our society will be moving toward more people wanting those rewards - and - fewer people actually creating the rewards. That creates demand - opportunity for the youngest in our society. Opportunity spurs innovation, invention, and advancement in our society. The future has the potential to be a very exciting time for our children. My generation only needs to stay out of the way - not interfere.

The future is theirs - we have had our time. Let us die in peace.

And how many of you are factoring in to your retirement numbers the fact that the Fed says they intend to devalue the dollar 33% over the next 20 years?

When I discovered that and crunched my retirement numbers, I need to save considerably more than expected. More saving means less stimulation to the economy.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/2012/02/06/the-federal-reserves-explicit-goal-devalue-the-dollar-33/

Damien

I'm not so sure about your lost productivity comment.

Truth is we are the most productive people in the world today . The heart of the problem is this . We have been taken over by the multi national corporations and their GREED . Congress is bought and paid for by them and the banks . Look back over the last fifty years and you will see that the middle class has gone backwards . This is by design , to put more wealth into the top 1% and rip off the 99%. A big part of their plan is for us to put money into a 401k. The Ponzi scam called the stock market which they control . They manipulate the market and rob us blind at the same time they avoid paying any and all taxes. We are on track to be the next country to default on it's loans because of this.

bob

correct Bob1. a few weeks after his inagural a reporter asked President Obama what he was going to do about the financial crisis he inherited. Up to then there was a lot of talk about the crooks who brought on the crisis and profited from it. Obama said: " We don't want to be divisive, we don't want to point fingers, We want to fix this and move on". HE saw it as a political case where his job is to cheer everybody on and unite them in a "fix". Apparently he had no idea the fraudsters caused it after spending years dismantling protective regulations through lobbying. He had and still has no idea that the secret to the succesful American economy making is boith the most successful and separating it from all others was the integrity of property laws, equity laws and the enforcement to protect investors and relatively bribe free. Since he had no knowledge of or apreciation for these things he was not aware of the need to chase down and jail the fraudsters. So our economy collapsed and took down everyone's 401k/IRA, home values plunged and when they gave the banks 2 traunches of 1.6 trillion in newly printed money they knocked the savings rates at bank CD's and fixed instruments to near zero. So no one has a way to make payments in retirement now. No crroks have gone to jail. Investors and banks are not investing because they cannot trust that they will not be the next set of victims of fraud. This lack of faith and confidence in the system caused by a failure to protect it has turned the great US financial system into a pethy, impotent version of Europe or Japans systems who went through the same cycle years before us. We failed to learn from them. So we're screwed. Except for GSA and Secret service.

Bob1, the stock market is not a ponzi scheme. In any country with an inverse population pyramid, social security is a "ponzi scheme" of sorts. The SS system has every-increasing obligations to pay from a relatively shrinking pool of investors.

Just threw up in my mouth quoting Rick Perry, but you get the basic idea.

The stock market is fueled by "greedy multinational corporations" who make everything from the keyboard you're tapping on to the shaving cream and razors in your bathroom. In a virtuous cycle, your quality of life depends upon the stock market and its multinationals meeting your daily needs.

From a Republican perspective, Americans are supposed to accept retiring later with less money and health care. What is wrong with that picture.

....the Dumbocrats never took a basic math class and they are destroying the middle class by stealing America's future from the productive and wasting it on the unproductive....thank Obummer for the fifteen trillion dollar deficit that he has no plan to reduce.....

Logically, what else follows in a society with an increasing retiree/worker ratio?

nyc-insert Bush's 2 wars on the credit card and Medicare part D on credit. Ect., ect., ect

Today is a day that as a NYCguy you should really enjoy-1 year ago President Barack Obama killed Osama Bin Laden. He remembered 9-11.

My comment was addressed to Eric. nycguy, come on man, changing the names of your opponents in an argument to sound like bad or funny words is 2nd grade.

Realist, SS has over $7 Trillion in unfunded liabilities. How much have the Bush/continued by Obama's wars cost?

If you really like numbers, let's throw in Medicare's well over $20 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

Democrats and Republicans alike are responsible for the mess we're in.

realist.....Nixon was in office when America landed on the moon, so do you credit him for that history or Kennedy for starting the effort to reach it in ten years?..... I thought so.......

relax.....sorry I have a tendency to do that to politicians who I have no respect for and am embarrassed by.....

I agree there is a problem with greed at the corporate and wealthy citizen levels, but there is also a problem with greed at the poor and middle class levels. Basically, as a society we do not want to pay for what we get. Until that attitude changes, we will continue to sink further and further into the financial hole we are in.

Hopefully, the voters will wake up and start demanding politicians pay for whatever we get - if not, we'll go the southern European route and have fiscal responsibility imposed on us by bondholders (and that won't be pretty).

sorry...double post...

no worries nyc, I get overheated too:)

They manipulate the market and rob us blind at the same time they avoid paying any and all taxes. We are on track to be the next country to default on it's loans because of this.

LOL they pay most of the tax burden if they are avoiding paying taxes they are doing a poor job. most people pay less in federal taxes then Mitt as a % of income. of the people that make 50K or less (approximately 66-68 million) 63-64 million pay no federal taxes. and 20% of that group gets a return back more than they paid in. For families making $50,000 to $75,000, the effective tax rate is 5.7%. From $75,000 to $100,000, it's 7.2%. And if you make $200,000, it goes up to 9.9%.

true Auto; BLS shows about 156 million in the workforce. About 28 million are gubmint employees and about another 45 million pay no Fed income taxes although most of these do pay the FICA at 7.65%. Economists estimate about 8% of the economy is "cash" only and off the radar screen of the IRS. We have lawn care boys with $35k pickup trucks towing $25k boats. I suspect they aren't in the tax system. All of these folks are getting benefits from gubmint while making no contribution or a contribution smaller than benefits received. The folks in the cash economy are eligible for all kinds of benies like health care for their kids, school food programs etc, because they have no W-2's no 1099's they are officially poor. THey'll even file for social security having never paid in.

gubmint=govt

I use Ronald Raygun's pronunciation - phonetically spelled of course. I find it interesting.

the good news for older construction workers is construction is almost stopped. The economy cannot strengthen anytime soon. IT requires a strong middle class and we are shredding our middle class. IT requires a strong set of laws and enforcement to protect savers and investors who provide the capital to feed growth. We shredded the laws so a few Wall Streeters and Investment bankers could get filthy rich. IT requires a strong comsumption sector. We have a society where the avg American Home is 2,500 sq ft filled floor to ceiling with stuff, 3 or more cars in the drive and thwe 1%'ers own 12,000 to 20,000sq ft of living space in 3 or more homes and vacation overseas 2x's a year plus ski in winter. We can't consme more cause we're flooded in property and stuff now. We have empty commercial property and residences all over the place because we built way too much already. So the folks who have jobs are going to try to hang on to them cause even people who don't read know they can't tell where this situation will lead. This is no time to retire and expect someone else to send you a check.

Chip you got that right. Just because a guy makes a big salary doesn't mean he has done physical or knows how to work. Most are simply con men who fool people to think they are working.

I got physically hurt at the first part of my working life, I was lucky enough to be a fairly quick study and changed my lifes work to less physical work, with study and schoolng that I paid for, not an employer. Though later an employer did assist in furthering my education to suit them.

I did barely make that magic 65 years old before I really had to retire due to my physical inabilities. Today I am confined to a wheelchair for my mobility.

If I had it to do all again I would sue everyone in sight that had anything to do with my "accident" because it was not an accident in my mind, it was purposeful disregard for well being. But I didn't subscribe to sueing at that time. And I didn't think my co workers would lie and disregard my well being.

I know I am hardly the only person who has been in this predicament. I was involved in the Construction Industry originally. I would never have made 67, let alone 70 which is where these dumbo's want this to get to. Oh yes neither Social Security or Medicare pays for my wheelchair or the work we have done to my home to make it handicapped friendly. We did this ourselves.

Costa Rica is looking nicer every day.

There are thousands of locations around the world where you can live like kings on SS alone. As long as state and federal governments keep trying to suck us dry, I see an ever expanding ex pat movement.

What will really kill us is if the rich get so fed up they leave and take their money with them. I don't think idiot democrats realize how easy it is to move capital around in the age of an interconnected world. It's already happening at the state level and has already begun at the federal level so it's not idle speculation.

mutant rats have already taken over the world..or at least Washington.

Thomas...you think politicians are mutant rats? I heard politicians were proof aliens had bred buffalo.

The only slavery going on is the government confiscating half of what I earn. If not for taxes I'd only have to work 12/7!

jblo...services aren't for free. The rest of us have to pay and so should the 1%.

apparently someone forgot to remember the 1% pay more than everyone else. did you ever stop to think what everyone would be paying in a socialistic european utopia. yes, this would require EVERYONE to pay more. something the American liberal is flat out against. The American liberal only wants other people to pay. what a crock.

They apparently are free for the 47% of people who don't pay federal income tax?

Plus I never asked for and don't want the "services" that are being provided.

jblo-Fox talking point-47% blah, blah, ect. You have to make enough money to pay minimum income taxes-they don't. If the Republicans have their way (like failed Gov. Scott Walker) they will lower wages to workers and eliminate unions and then the 47% can be 67%. The rich had better be careful what they wish for, they would have to pay more then.

yep, and then they have the nerve to claim corporations are "greedy"!?

Count me as sick and tired, but just like any surviver I have this guilt complex that makes me want to apoligize to the generations after mine for allowing Washington to screw up their country like this. Congress' approval rating is down to about eight or so, and most of us are wondering, who are these eight? Are there that many people in this country that are comatose?

jblo-1489250

yep, and then they have the nerve to claim corporations are "greedy"!?

Corporations are greedy, at least the overwhlming majority of them. There are a few exceptions. Of course, that doesn't excuse govt waste and greed but corp.s are greedy. Buy local, buy small, whenever possible. No more Walmart, no more Best Buy.

No, I'll purchase Walmart items to save my income and put it toward things like saving for my retirement. Small and local is generally inefficient, and keeps capital from being put in the most productive areas of the economy.

Mom & pop shops linger, don't hire new people, and provide a crappy living for all concerned-often paying the proprietors lower than minimum wage.

Corporations cannot be greedy because they are not people (in contrary to the SCOTUS ruling). They are collections of people who saved money, and pooled it together to create a product people want to buy at a price they want to pay.

Your "small and local" concept spells economic regression for all concerned, from mom and pop to the communities that attempt to zone out the big box stores.

I'll get off my soap box in a sec, but the idea of "small and local" is awful! The "small and local" hardware shop sells the same shovel made in China as walmart, for a bigger markup.

Why am I giving mom and pop charity money? Why am I entertaining their illusion that competing with Walmart to sell a Chinese-built shovel is a good idea?

Now, you'll say the shovel should've been made in the US, with US steel made with union jobs that pay a living wage. Why am I subsidizing some guy's crappy job working in a foundry when the union worker in the foundry wishes he could've trained into a different, better job years ago?

Excepting protectionist US policies subsidizing US steel that are horribly expensive to US manufacturers and consumers, many areas of the US would have moved on from unprofitable industries years ago and would be thriving today. These policies (tariffs) distorted market realities and gave the foundry worker the illusion his smelting skills were needed in the modern US economy.

Isn't it a good thing I don't have to pay $100 for the above shovel? Isn't it great I can use that savings to put food on the table for my family? "Buy local" and similar protectionism-based strategies are awful! They are worst for the people "protected" and likewise decimate the standard of living for the poor and middle class.

//end of rant//

Thomas Blue,

Show me one corporation that gouges customers as much as public universities gouge students.

Drive on down to your public university that you've paid for and see if they'll let you use the gym, the computers, the libraries, course materials, etc. I think you'll find very quickly that when it comes to government they think "what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine".

I can choose not to patronize a corporation. The government will put me in jail if I don't pay the tribute.

jblo-now university education can join police, firemen and teachers as tax wasting cads. I know you wish you had never learned to read-it's so upsetting to learn and the masters don't like uppity knowledge in workers.

Outside of the cable company (whom I've fired) I can't think of one corporation as arrogant and greedy as the average government enterprise. And in the cable company's defense they are only that way because government has granted them a monopoly.

jblo you are spot on, government is the worst run employer there is. They waste more than all other corps put together...IMHO. Just look at the bloated agencies that run will wild spending out tax dollars. Then look at the hand-out agencies...that is enough to make one puke. The liberal agenda is wrecking this country. Blame it on Bush tho...geez...blame the sun coming up on Bush.

The repubs are the only ones standing in the way of more bloated government spending that we can't afford.

Unless they are corporate raiders-then they dodge taxes with Cayman Island and Swiss accounts. They would hide their tax returns and hope the American people are too preoccupied with gas prices and trying to pay their bills.

There are people like you describe, but unless you believe wealth creation is a zero-sum game then a wealthy person does more to benefit the poor through the disproportionate tax revenue they generate (regardless of effective tax rate) than a middle class person.

realist - cayman islands actually have more strict tax laws than the U.S. but you wouldn't care. you're either spreading DNC lies willingly or through ignorance. thanks for being part of the problem.

realist - the biggest tax dodgers around are government employees who get to defer the bulk of their taxable income until retirement which they then draw tax free for 30 years or more.

JBLO-14...; NOPE, AT RETIREMENT, your pension is taxed , with about a 15% credit , as to what you paid in, so you will wind up in the 25% fed. tax bracket, all new federal employees must also contribute to social security, since around 1996, and here is the kicker, unless you put in 30 years of social security, your social security benefits are reduced dollar for dollar , from what you receive from your government pension, and now their health care package is rolled over into medicare, by the way it was the democrats that passed that one.

Well state's like Illinois don't tax teacher pensions for example but the bigger point is the income is being shifted from working years with higher tax rates to retirement years with lower tax rates. I'd be interested to know what the expected life time taxes of a teacher are versus a private sector employee making the same salary.

jblo-148; that is state taxes, it does not exempt them from federal income tax, even social security income is now taxed, even though you already paid the tax on it when it was earned during your working years, since you do not get a tax deduction for the social security tax you pay each year of your working life,

When social security started, those who reached the age of 65 could expect to live another 12-14 years. Now those who reach 65 can expect to live 15-20 years more, so it does make sense to increase the full benefit age to 67.

BTW3110

You're missing the point. Yes, people do live longer, but try getting a job at 60 or 65. Let me know how that works out for you.

Chuck- You missed the point. I was responding to the comment by AmericanPauper that increasing the retirement age is in order to "wring the last drops of life out of ya". Actually most people who retire before 65 do so voluntarily, not because they can't find a job.

Actually most people who retire before 65 do so voluntarily, not because they can't find a job.

Not these days. If you lose your job at 55 you're going to be very lucky if you ever find another one. These people are burning through their retirement money trying to survive until they qualify for early retirement on Social Security.

Most people over 55 have not lost there jobs, so keep things in perspective.l

and your proof would be?

D McMillen...true, but none of those societies were founded on slavery.....founded as a business enterprise dependent upon slavery.

I don't believe slavery was the business model of the early colonists. It came at a later period in the history of the country. Not too many slaves in the New England colonies.

I agree

Virginia Colony was the first colony, not Plymouth or MA Bay. Jamestown was founded in 1607 and African slavery was here by 1619. The Virginia Company started this place out as a business enterprise....worked by indentured servants for the first few years, but quickly replaced by African slaves. Plymouth came about 10-12 years after Jamestown.

New England is basically a cultural island....most of America's culture comes from Virginia. Midwestern and Southern culture certainly have their roots in Virginia.

AP, you have a good grasp on factual American history. There are a lot of terribly dark things about it. There are also a lot of incredibly bright things about it. The founders were flawed men, yet they formed the vanguard for human rights in the 18th century. It took another flawed man, Abraham Lincoln to end the evil of slavery, and it took still another flawed man, LBJ to finally bring about overdue civil rights.

We're not there yet, but I look at American history and cultural development as being on the forefront of respect for and the equality of human rights. We do a lot of good things that I think you take for granted.

We also have a lot of tragic flaws. That's the human condition. We're the best d@mn country to live in, ever, though:)

The blacks in VA colony did arrive in 1619, a whole 30 of them. Most became landowners and slaveholders themselves. Anyways, this isn't a discussion on black history, this is an article about retirement. I agree with you that Apple is an evil corporation. I think what you would like is socialism, which I disapprove of. If you would like to live in a society that has that, there is not much stopping you from moving. I don't think that anyone rationally believes that we are going to become the next Soviet Union, regardless of who gets to live in the White House for a couple of yrs.

talk about greed. Apple pays 9% taxes. has hundreds of billions in overseas banks to avoid paying taxes and pays Asians $350/month to build their gadgets. but then it's ran by a group of rich elite liberals who aspire to showcase liberal hypocrisy.

That $350 a month probably buys a lot there as their cost of living is way cheaper there. That would probably be considered good wages and would buy alot. Did you ever consider that? We have such a high cost of living here that i am considering becomming an ex pat and retiring out of this country. The cost of living here is just too high.

outstanding! I became a soldier when I was a kid, so I do get the govt pension, but the big part is like you said, don't get caught up trying to impress people with material possessions.

D McMillan: I, too, get a government pension having put in 20+ years in the military. The worse part is that it's taxed each and every year! Why is it that they tax our pensions....we gave many, many years to earn them, giving of our time, our family's time, our hard-earned work, etc. It just galls me that the government has to tax my military pension!! If anyone deserves a non-taxed pension, it's our military.....they give so much for so little!!

Rondo, much like your mom....my mom told me to start saving from my very first job! When I got my first job out of high school, she made me pay rent each month....of the $200 I gave her, she put $100 in my savings account. AND, when I went into the military, she had me put in for an automatic deposit of $10 (to start with) into my savings account. I've been saving since then....little by little....and I've taken advantage of my 401(k) plan and my company pension. I still don't see any way I can retire until I'm in my early 70's. It's just a darn good thing I have a reasonably stead job, no pressure, and a fantastic boss. So many people don't have that, and I really feel for them....but, as I said, we're all pretty much in the same boat. None of us can actually afford to retire in any semplance of comfort!! I'm looking at Equador myself!

Didi, military pensions are more than generous and should be taxed, especially given your healthcare is extremely affordable. You have a military and company pension and can't retire in a semblance of comfort? That doesn't compute.

While many do give so much for so little-even the ultimate sacrifice... others may work desk jobs for 20 years, may retire at 38, and then collect a 50 years of pension and free healthcare worth several million dollars.

As a former military person myself, I am always perplexed how many military are ardent conservatives who understand union benefit plans so similar to their own to be unsustainable.

Yes, the military does a unique and special job, and yes-they deserve to be taken care of... but you, Didi, are reimbursed a few million dollars (I'll break it down for you if you insist) for your service, and that is not "so little".

After deployments and everything, I still always feel like I owe more to my country than my country has ever owed to me.

relax, you are one of the few guys that actually think you owe the country, there used to be a hell of a lot more like you. I don't think Didi's issue is so much with taxes, but how they are being spent. In my mid 40's, I'm going back to school with my g.i.bill, and you would be surprised at how many young woman I hear brag about getting food aid and living in govt assisted housing "I got to gets mines", is a phrase that get's used alot. Their income is predicated upon how many babies from "Tron" and "Spider" they can pop out, and my issue is, since my pay that I actuallly did something for is taxed, why does it have to go to people who willfully do stupid things. I have no problem providing for the poor and less fortunate, I don't make much, but I do believe in giving to charity. But there are people who really need it, and people who fabricate their need for it

I am not aware of anyone suggesting cuts to Social Security. Members of both political parties are aware that some modest modifications, similar to those made in the early 1980s, need to be made to ensure that current benefits levels can be maintained for at least another 75 years.

do you realize California has the biggest gap between the rich and the poor. I wonder why Obama didn't start his fairness speech there? what a joke liberals turned out to be. spread lies and hate and get the sheep all emotional.

Peter - what is the Ryan budget? Decrease taxes on corporations and the rich and cut social programs because we can't afford them. This makes sense to you?

The Obama budget received 0 positive votes.

Today is the 1 year anniversary of President Barack Obama killing Osama Bin Laden. 9-11 never forget.

Turn out in '12

Obama/Biden

The military did it.And Bill Clinton could have autherized it and didnt.

Life isnt fair,unions cost to much.All the jobs went overseas.

Most well work until they die.

The military did it.And Bill Clinton could have autherized it and didnt.

And Bush and Romney said it wasn't worth the effort.

What's your point?

Good for you twofingers. I'm glad you were lucky and your hard work paid off and the American dream worked out for you.

hs321: Thank you but my point was that its not going to happen if you expect freebees and spend time resenting successful people. And you don't have to prove anything to anyone except to yourself. Life has no guarantees, you have to make it happen and you have to work full time doing it. If you don't have a job, find out what you need to do to qualify for what is available then do it. I you have a job, find out what your company needs from you to move you up, then do it. Don't spend your time trying to keep up with your "friends". Save something out of any income, even unemployment compensation. Don't have kids you cant afford. Don't be to proud to take ANY job until you can get the one you want. Hard work never killed anybody but it sure made a lot of them rich.

I am that way. I work hard, try to move up, save money like crazy. Live in much smaller house and drive a less expensive car than I can afford. I'm still waiting for my old picture tube TV to go out so I can break down and by my first flat screen.

However, several companies I worked for went under or were bought out, killing my upward movement. Then my now ex left and cut my net worth by more than half. Worked and saved hard only to lose almost half again in 2008 crash.

Sometimes the door opens for you, and some times it slams shut.

But like a guy said one time, "Life has no guarantees."

Every time I pay my mortgage I say a nice thank you to Bill Clinton whose house for every american policy inflated my house prices so ridiculously high i won't be above water for 3 more years.

stop-check your facts-George W. Bush pushed that program more than any other president. They were all wrong-I agree with that. You can't give loans out without collateral and/or income necessary to pay payments. Politicians on both sides pandering for demographics and votes.

bottom line. without clinton's policy and without liberal cronies like franklin raines and james johnson cooking the books at freddie and fannie the housing bubble never happens.

Stop

If you are going to thank Bill Clinton for something you should thank him for the repeal of Glass -Steegal. That is what inflated housing prices. Throw in NAFTA and it shows how much damage the corporate democrats have done to the middle class.

Rev,

That was after he compromised with the Republican Congress to get some of his programs passed. The Glass Steagle Act was gutted long before it was actually slaughtered. But make no mistake the money folks who wanta free reign over your money will stop at nothing to get that money away from you. I hope those folks with clearer heads will prevail and regulate them to death.

I am for banking regulation. We need to cut our gov. spending also.

stop-your only chance of retirement or social security lies with democrats. If the Republican upper crust had it's way you would not retire until you were disabled and social security in a reduced fashion would be available in your 70's. It's not that the upper crust of the democrats is any better or caring as a group-they get their votes from the workers and will protect their self interests. It's a rotten game all about money and power. I hate to say it but Democrat pols as a group need the workers for their power and lobby money in the future.