Observing America: A Patriotic point of view

By Chris Moody | The Ticket

Painting himself as a social conservative, a business executive and a Washington outsider, Mitt Romney told the Conservative Political Action Conference on Friday in Washington that his experience outside of the federal government is his strongest attribute in the 2012 presidential campaign.

“I happen to be the only candidate in this race, Republican or Democrat, who has never worked a day in Washington,” Romney said. “I don’t have old scores to settle or decades of cloakroom deals that I have to defend.”

The speech was Romney’s chance to make his case to the base of the Republican Party. He linked his political ideology to the nation’s founding documents, saying, “We conservatives aren’t just proud to cling to our guns and our religion. We are also proud to cling to our Constitution.”

Romney emphasized his experience in the private-equity firm Bain Capital, arguing that his ability to slim down businesses could be applied to Washington.

“In business, if you’re not fiscally conservative, you’re bankrupt,” he said. “I mean, I spent 25 years balancing budgets, eliminating waste, and, by the way, keeping as far away from government as humanly possible. I did some of the very things conservatism is designed for–I started new businesses and turned around broken ones. And I am not ashamed to say that I was successful in doing it.”

He went on to say, “I served in government, but I didn’t inhale–I’m still a business guy. And I can’t wait to get my hands on Washington.”

Romney cast himself as a champion of social conservatism during his tenure as governor of Massachusetts. “Less than a year after I took office, the state’s supreme court inexplicably found a right to same-sex marriage in the constitution, written by John Adams,” Romney said. “I presume he’d be surprised.”

By barring out-of-state gay couples from getting married in the state, “On my watch, we fought hard and prevented Massachusetts from becoming the Las Vegas of gay marriage,” Romney said. He added, “When I am President, I will defend the Defense of Marriage Act and I will fight for an amendment to our Constitution that defines marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman.”

Romney added that he “vetoed a bill that would have opened the door to cloning and embryo farming,” fought abstinence education, and “vetoed a bill that would have allowed young girls to gain access to abortion-inducing drugs.”

“I fought against long odds in a deep blue state,” Romney said. “But I was a severely conservative Republican governor.”

Is this what you want in a President, America?

Get Involved, America!

Gadabout

No Comments - Click here to leave a comment

By Robert Powell | MarketWatch

President Barack Obama, in his State of the Union speech, didn’t really touch on the subject near and dear to the hearts of millions of Americans — the State of Retirement in the U.S.

No doubt he had other pressing matters to address. So allow us the pleasure of issuing — thanks in large part to a many experts on the topic — our State of Retirement column.

In short: Things are bad and, in the absence of action or in the presence of the ill-advised action, could get much worse.

“I think the state of retirement in America is endangered as the ‘Great Recession’ has taken a toll on the financial status of many and as retirement savings were not adequate for many prior to the ‘Great Recession,’” said Matthew Greenwald, the president of Matthew Greenwald & Associates, a leading retirement research firm. “There are several things that need to be fixed, including addressing Social Security and helping people feel confident in the viability of the system, more effective defined-contribution plans that do a better job of encouraging participants to defer more of their income and more effective advice to retirees that helps them use their financial assets most effectively when they retire.”

Others are in the same camp. “There are many challenges,” said Anna Rappaport, the president of Anna Rappaport Consulting and chair of the Society of Actuary’s Committee on Post-Retirement Needs and Risks. But Rappaport also said there’s a lot of opportunity to fix those challenges.

Here’s a look at the challenges and some ways to respond.

Social Security

The combined Social Security trust funds will be exhausted in 2036 and at that point there will only be enough income coming in to pay for 77% of scheduled benefits.

Read the trustees’ report here.

Now 24 years might seem like plenty of time to fix that problem but there doesn’t seem to be the political will to do so. Elected officials are seemingly afraid to tackle the issue; they would rather a greater fool put their bid to be re-elected at risk than address an issue that will affect some 78.1 million Americans a generation from now, which we should note is twice the number of Americans age 65 and older today.

But the truth of the matter is that it’s time that President Obama (or someone) take a page from President Ronald Reagan’s book when, in 1981, he established a commission led by Alan Greenspan to reform Social Security.

Some two years later, as a result of that commission’s work, amendments to Social Security included a provision for raising the full retirement age from age 65 to 67, phased in over time. At the time, the Congress cited improvements in the health of older people and increases in average life expectancy as primary reasons for increasing the normal retirement age.

Given the current and predicted future state of Social Security, it’s time to once again raise the full retirement age, according to Bob Reynolds, the president and CEO of Putnam Investments. This time, Reynolds suggests, we might peg the full retirement age to life expectancy so as to adjust for improvements in the health of older people and increases in average life expectancy.

In 1940, for instance, the average 65-year-old male in the U.S. had a life expectancy of 77.7. In 1990, it was 80.3. And by 2006, it was 81.6. “You have to adjust for that,” Reynolds said. “It’s just too costly.”

FYI: Using 1940 as the benchmark ratio, the full retirement age could be raised, by my calculations, to 70¾.

Of course, you would phase the increase in over a period of time so that people have time to prepare for it, Reynolds said. And you might leave the full retirement age for people over age 55 as is, while adjusting it upward for those under age 55.

Reynolds also favors increasing the amount of earnings subject to taxation for a given year. For 2012, the annual limit, the contribution and benefit base for Social Security, is $110,100. He suggests that the contribution and benefit base be increased to “somewhere around” $150,000. “That would provide the base for a stable system long term,” Reynolds said. He noted, for instance that there’s no limit on the amount one’s taxed to pay for Medicare.

What’s more, Reynolds is in favor of examining a needs-based system that would reduce one’s Social Security benefit one based on income or assets. “It’s something that should be looked at,” he said.

Others also see the need to shore up Social Security. For instance, Cynthia Egan, president of T. Rowe Price Retirement Plan Services, said: “Lower income earners, those who are not covered by a defined contribution plan, as well as ‘weak savers’ are going to be highly reliant on Social Security. It is what it is. So we must ensure the stability and reliability of the Social Security program for the future.”

Contribution rates

On average, workers — at least those who have such a plan — contribute about 7% of their compensation into their 401(k) plan and that, many experts say, is too low. According to Reynolds, one would need to save at least 10% to replace, when combined with Social Security benefits, 80% of one’s final pay in retirement. Others say contributions rates have to be even higher the longer one waits to save and the less one has socked away.

Maybe the time has come to put in place plans that would automatically escalate the amount one contributes to a 401(k) to a minimum of 10%, not just the 3% which is the norm. Others agreed. “People need to save more — and we need to figure out how to make that happen,” Rappaport said.

To be fair, not all experts are worried about contribution rates or the shortcomings of 401(k) plans.

For instance, Kevin Crain, head of Institutional Retirement & Benefit Services for Bank of America Merrill Lynch, offered the following: “We believe that privately sponsored corporate retirement systems are structured to be successful, and can be even more successful with employer’s continued focus on enhancements to their financial benefit plans and services. More specifically, within 401(k)s, we continue to see significant increases in employee engagement and utilization of these plans through such tools as auto enrollment and advice services.”

And Linda Wolohan, a spokeswoman for the Vanguard Group, said: “The U.S. retirement system, while rocked like any investment-based program during the severe market downturn of a few years ago, has shown great resilience.”

For instance, she noted that retirement wealth for the typical 401(k) plan participant grew over the past five years even in the face of the substantial market and economic shocks. What’s more, she said, while account balances have sometimes been cited as too low to be helpful in retirement, it’s important to note that the typical participant is a 46-year-old male who is saving 8.8%, with 20 to 25 more years to work and grow his account. “His retirement plan assets will be complemented by Social Security benefits and other savings, perhaps assets in other employer plans or a spouse’s plan, or personal savings,” she said. “Even though we always encourage people to save more — ideally at least 12% to 15% of their income — the reality is that more participants than you think may be on target for retirement.”

Coverage

Another issue plaguing the U.S. today is this: Just half of the 150 million or so working Americans have an employer-sponsored retirement plan at work. And the 75 million workers who don’t have a retirement plan at work aren’t saving anything at all for their golden years. But studies suggest that those workers might save if they did have a plan at work. So, Reynolds is in favor of creating what’s been called a universal, or automatic, IRA.

According to the Heritage Foundation, universal or automatic IRAs would provide a relatively simple, cost-effective way to increase retirement security for the millions of workers without plan coverage. The universal or automatic IRA, said the Heritage Foundation, is a way that employees of smaller businesses can choose to save for retirement by allowing their employers regularly transfer an amount from their paycheck to an IRA.

Read the Heritage Foundations report on automatic IRAs here.

For her part, Egan said there’s no need for another retirement plan, just incentives. “Small employers should be offered incentives to provide coverage,” she said. “We don’t need another vehicle. There are many, many providers who support small- and micro-plan services. We simply need to incent the smaller employer to make it happen and keep it simple for them.”

By the way, one big risk looming is the possibility that those folks who did the right thing and saved for retirement, might end up paying in one way or another for those who didn’t.

Literacy and confidence

Sometime in March, the Employee Benefit Research Institute will release the 22nd annual Retirement Confidence Survey and will likely show that only a few Americans are very confident about having enough money for retirement. In 2011, just 13% were very confident.

Reynolds suggests that there’s a correlation between financial literacy and confidence. To solve the confidence problem, we must solve the literacy problem. According to Reynolds, it’s time to provide the education and tools required to help people understand how much to save and how to invest, how much they will need to accumulate for retirement, and how to make their money last a lifetime once in retirement. Knowledge will lead to action, and action will lead to confidence.

Others agree. “Financial literacy and awareness are key components in helping Americans prepare for retirement,” said Suzanna de Baca, the vice president of wealth strategies at Ameriprise Financial. “Any American looking ahead to retirement can benefit from a written financial plan that will help them define their retirement goals and objectives, and guide them in creating a realistic plan to create a more confident financial future.”

Rachel McTague, a spokeswoman for the Investment Company Institute (ICI), also said education is needed. “ICI research finds that the system of saving for retirement in 401(k) plans and IRAs is a success, based on such survey data and modeling of potential savings over a full career with 401(k) plans,” she said. “Nonetheless, we believe there is room for improvement. Among other priorities, we support efforts to provide retirement savers with information and tools to help them use the system to accumulate assets and understand and navigate the distribution phase as well.”

Read the ICI research at this website.

In the absence of such education and planning, however, there are those who say policies that force people to save on their own for retirement hurt more than help. “Too much responsibility has been shifted to individuals, and they are not well prepared to handle them,” said Rappaport. “Financial literacy creates major challenges and we need systems that work without people having initiative.”

Outliving one’s assets

Right now, there’s much ado about outliving one’s assets. Experts are worried that average Americans don’t understand longevity risk and might draw down their assets too quickly during retirement. According to experts, many Americans should consider adding investments that insure against the risk of outliving one’s assets. But that’s unlikely to happen anytime soon. Most Americans are distrustful of such products. Nonetheless, it’s worth adding this opinion to the mix.

“Striking the right balance between growth and income to keep from outliving one’s retirement savings is an even more daunting task than it was before the current period of market volatility and low interest rates,” said Chris Winans, a spokesman for AXA Equitable. “The problem is that 401(k)s and plain-vanilla savings accounts without downside protection are exposed to the vagaries of the market. You wouldn’t think of not spending whatever it costs to insure from losing your house in a fire. Why wouldn’t you want protection on a portion of your retirement nest egg, too? Our challenge is to help people understand this value for themselves and their families. You hope your savings appreciate and nothing bad happens, but a lifetime income guarantee reduces some of the risk. That’s worth something.”

Tax breaks and retirement

Efforts to eliminate the so-called tax breaks Americans get for saving money in a 401(k) or other plans where they can to save on a pre-tax basis could affect adversely the state of retirement in the U.S.

According to Reynolds, 401(k) plans and the like are not tax breaks. Rather they are tax-deferred plans. At some point in the future, Americans will pay ordinary income taxes on the money distributed from those plans. Efforts to eliminate or reduce incentives to save might backfire and reduce further the poor state of retirement in the U.S., not improve it.

Egan is of the same opinion. “Tax incentives must be preserved for retirement savings,” she said. “Our defined contribution system reflects ‘the American way.’ There’s a balance among government endorsement and oversight, corporate and plan sponsor fiduciary responsibility, individual responsibility, and free market competition among service providers.”

The good news — sort of

“As more and more baby boomers retire, the discussion on retirement, on retirement income, will become a national topic,” said Reynolds. “And I think it will spark the interest of retirement to all age groups.”

Let’s hope that’s the case because the problem is real. “America is facing an unprecedented retirement challenge as the U.S. population undergoes a radical demographic shift,” said Michael Falcon, head of retirement at J.P. Morgan Asset Management. “Twenty percent of the population will be over 65 years old by 2020 and, despite impressive aggregate asset growth, many Americans are still significantly short of the savings they will need for a dignified retirement and are unprepared for the complex financial choices they will need to make.”

What do you think, America?

Gadabout

No Comments - Click here to leave a comment

By Donald Pennington 

During Monday’s South Carolina debate, Congressman Ron Paul is seen in a video from Fox News being booed for having the audacity to suggest America’s problems with other countries might be caused by how we behave. I suppose some folks don’t like being told they’re the problem.

 While I’m sympathetic to anyone’s discomfort during that moment when they first begin to hear the real source of their problems, being offended does not change the fact of the matter. It’s understandable that some folks might find it embarrassing to be seen as the source of their own difficulties. But only the most immature and intellectually lazy would not take the lesson as a chance to improve themselves.

The platform of the congressman from Texas offers America the chance to take a new approach. We can never change the errors of our past, but we can change our country’s behaviors going into the future. In a speech before the House of Representatives on Feb. 12, 2009, Paul also made valid points of how the American soldiers lost since 9/11 are “not a fair trade-off for the loss of nearly 3,000 American citizens, no matter how many Iraqi, Pakistani and Afghan people are killed or displaced.” And that “conservatives, who preach small government, wake up and realize that our interventionist foreign policy provides the greatest incentive to expand the government” — among others. Perhaps he should be booed for speaking the truth there too.

 But when any of my fellow Americans decry someone for speaking the truth — whether it’s comfortable and “feel good” or not — they surrender their right to ever complain about any other politician for lying to them later. If the truth of saying we should perhaps consider the future consequences of our own actions deserves to get booed by a crowd, then we’re telling our officials we’d rather hear a comforting lie than an uncomfortable truth. If we would rather a politician tell us what we want to hear, then perhaps we’ve surrendered all capacity to even deserve our freedom here in America.

Perhaps we deserve no better than Mitt Romney telling us what we want to hear, or Newt Gingrich selling us all down the river for his own, personal gain. Maybe we’d rather let Rick Santorum decide what kind of morality we should all be forced to conform to instead.

We’re getting what we deserve, America!!!    Wake up!!!    Be Informed, get Involved!!!

Gadabout

No Comments - Click here to leave a comment

By CALVIN WOODWARD

WASHINGTON (AP) — After months of getting a pass on the subject from his rivals, Mitt Romney was challenged in the Republican presidential debate Saturday night on his frequent claims that he created great numbers of jobs in the private sector. Newt Gingrich, for one, said Romney’s record as a venture capitalist was one of flipping companies, taking out all the money and “leaving behind the workers.”

Who’s right?

The bottom line remains unknown about how many jobs were gained or lost from Romney’s work at the Bain Capital private equity company. But this much is clear: His accounting behind the assertion that he created more than 100,000 jobs at companies he helped start up or turn around has been flawed.

A look at some of the claims in the latest GOP debate and how they compare with the facts:

ROMNEY: “But in the business I had, we invested in over 100 different businesses and net … net, taking out the ones where we lost jobs and those that we added, those businesses have now added over 100,000 jobs.”

GINGRICH: “I’m not nearly as enamored of a Wall Street model where you can flip companies, you can go in and have leveraged buyouts, you can basically take out all the money, leaving behind the workers.”

THE FACTS: Romney has never substantiated his frequent claim that he was a creator of more than 100,000 jobs while leading the Bain Capital private equity company. His campaign merely cites success stories without laying out the other side of the ledger — jobs lost at Bain-acquired or Bain-supported firms that closed, trimmed their workforce or shifted employment overseas.

Moreover, his campaign bases its claims on recent employment figures at three companies — Staples, Domino’s and Sports Authority — even though Romney’s involvement with them ceased years ago.

By that sort of charitable math, President Barack Obama could be credited with creating over 1 million jobs even though employment overall is down about 2 million since he came to office. But Romney accuses Obama of destroying jobs while using a different standard to judge his own performance — cherry-picked examples that leave everything else out.

By its nature, venture capitalism often results in lost jobs because profitability and efficiency are key to investors, not how many people are on the payroll. Bain Capital profited in cases where employment went both up and down.

Staples, now with close to 90,000 employees, and Sports Authority, with about 15,000, were startups supported by Romney. The direct work force at Domino’s has grown by nearly 8,000 since Romney’s intervention. But Romney got out of the game in 1999, which has not stopped his campaign from crediting him with jobs created at those companies since then.

Romney toned down the braggadocio in the latest debate, saying that of the Bain-supported companies that grew, “we’re only a small part of that, by the way.” But he insisted his claim of more than 100,000 jobs was a “net net” figure that takes into account job losses elsewhere, even though his campaign has defended the assertion only by reporting on the performance of Sports Authority, Domino’s and Staples.

No one has been able to produce a full accounting of job gains and losses from the scores of companies Romney dealt with at Bain. But a Los Angeles Times review of Bain’s 10 largest investments under Romney found that four of the big companies declared bankruptcy within a few years, costing thousands of jobs and often pension and severance benefits.

___

RON PAUL about RICK SANTORUM: “So he’s a big government person, along with him being very associated with the lobbyists and taking a lot of funds. And also where did he get — make his living afterwards? I mean, he became a high-powered lobbyist in Washington, D.C. And he has done quite well. We checked out Newt, on his income. I think we ought to find out how much money he (Santorum) has made from the lobbyists as well.”

SANTORUM: “When I left the United States Senate, I got involved in causes that I believe in…. I was asked by a health care company to be on their board of directors. Now, I don’t know whether you think boards of directors are lobbyists. They’re not.”

THE FACTS: Santorum was not, as Paul suggested, a registered lobbyist after he left the Senate. But Santorum did trade his Washington experience for lucrative work afterward, not unlike Gingrich, who has faced plenty of tough questions about money he earned from the corridors of power despite never being registered as a lobbyist.

Financial disclosure records show that from January 2010 to August 2011, Santorum earned at least $1.3 million working as a corporate consultant, political pundit and board member. Santorum reported that the American Continental Group, a Washington lobbying group, paid him $65,000 in consulting fees. The firm’s lengthy client list includes Microsoft Corp., Comcast Corp. and the American Gaming Association.

“The senator did general consulting and provided his advice and opinion on which way the Senate may go, based on his record in the Senate and his history in leadership,” said David Urban, president of American Continental Group.

___

ROMNEY: “I was in a state where the Supreme Court stepped in and said, marriage is a relationship required under the Constitution for — for people of the same sex to be able to marry. And John Adams, who wrote the Constitution, would be surprised.”

THE FACTS: John Adams would be surprised to hear he wrote the Constitution. He was a minister to Britain at the time, after having been minister to France. He was not a delegate to the Constitutional Convention. He was, though, an architect of the Declaration of Independence. And he constructed the Massachusetts Constitution.

___

SANTORUM, on Obama’s approach to large street protests of the elections in Iran in which Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was re-elected over a perceived moderate: “We had a president of the United States who stood silently by as thousands were killed on the streets, and did nothing. Did nothing. In fact, he tacitly supported the results of the election.”

THE FACTS: Santorum appears to have substantially exaggerated the death toll, for which there is no authoritative estimate. Opposition supporters in Iran claimed hundreds may have died; the Iranian government claimed several dozen.

Obama indeed reacted cautiously — tepidly in the opinion of critics. Wisely or not, he had reasons for doing so. Iran analysts had warned against overt U.S. support for Ahmadinejad’s foes, saying such backing might taint them as well as give the Iranian government evidence that the unrest was caused by outsiders. Iranian opposition figures wanted distance from the United States over fears that U.S. support would impugn their credibility.

Once the severity of the crackdown became known, Obama condemned the violence and said the Iranian government should respect the rights of free speech and assembly. When it became clear that opposition protesters were relying heavily on social media to get their message out and organize, the State Department intervened with Twitter to delay a planned upgrade that would have shut down the service in Iran.

___

ROMNEY, on Obama: “He wants us to turn into a European-style welfare state.”

GINGRICH: “His desperate efforts to create a …. European model.”

THE FACTS: Republicans seldom make clear what they are talking about when they accuse Obama of trying to turn the U.S. into a “European-style welfare state.”

They no doubt are referring at least in part to Obama’s health-care overhaul, but that falls far short of many European plans of government-sponsored, universal health-care coverage. There’s little evidence that any of Obama’s proposals are modeled on European laws, policies and practices. And in finance, European nations appear to be moving in the direction of an American model, with tighter restrictions on banking practices and deficit-reduction programs.

Aren’t you TIRED of the Republican Bullshit, America???      Will they EVER tell the TRUTH???

Get Involved, America!!!     Be informed!!!

Gadabout

No Comments - Click here to leave a comment

By:   The Blaze

“Even though most Americans have become very frustrated with this economy, the reality is that the vast majority of them still have no idea just how bad our economic decline has been or how much trouble we are going to be in if we don’t make dramatic changes immediately,” writes The Economic Collapse (TEC).

For those unfamiliar with this site, TEC is an economic blog that regularly compiles a comprehensive list of the most startling and unsettling facts about the U.S. economy.

Why? Because Americans need to understand that U.S. economy is precariously balanced on the edge of full-blown collapse.

“If we do not educate the American people about how deathly ill the U.S. economy has become, then they will just keep falling for the same old lies that our politicians keep telling them. Just ‘tweaking’ things here and there is not going to fix this economy,” the site explains.

Indeed, America’s economic situation has become increasingly unstable. However, what’s arguably more disconcerting than the state of the U.S. economy is the fact many Americans are largely–if not completely–unaware of just how serious things have become.

“America is consuming far more wealth than it is producing and our debt is absolutely exploding,” TEC explains. “If we stay on this current path, an economic collapse is inevitable. Hopefully the crazy economic numbers from 2011 that I have included in this article will be shocking enough to wake some people up.”

It might behoove Blaze readers to share the facts listed below with family and friends.

“If we all work together, hopefully we can get millions of people to wake up and realize that ‘business as usual’ will result in a national economic apocalypse,” writes TEC.

Here are the 50 economic numbers from 2011 that will shock you (via The Economic Collapse):

1. A staggering 48 percent of all Americans are either considered to be “low income” or are living in poverty.

2. Approximately 57 percent of all children in the United States are living in homes that are either considered to be “low income” or impoverished.

3. If the number of Americans that “wanted jobs” was the same today as it was back in 2007, the “official” unemployment rate put out by the U.S. government would be up to 11 percent.

4. The average amount of time that a worker stays unemployed in the United States is now over 40 weeks.

5. One recent survey found that 77 percent of all U.S. small businesses do not plan to hire any more workers.

6. There are fewer payroll jobs in the United States today than there were back in 2000 even though we have added 30 million extra people to the population since then.

7. Since December 2007, median household income in the United States has declined by a total of 6.8 percent once you account for inflation.

8. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 16.6 million Americans were self-employed back in December 2006. Today, that number has shrunk to 14.5 million.

9. A Gallup poll from earlier this year found that approximately one out of every five Americans that do have a job consider themselves to be underemployed.

10. According to author Paul Osterman, about 20 percent of all U.S. adults are currently working jobs that pay poverty-level wages.

11. Back in 1980, less than 30 percent of all jobs in the United States were low income jobs. Today, more than 40 percent of all jobs in the United States are low income jobs.

12. Back in 1969, 95 percent of all men between the ages of 25 and 54 had a job. In July, only 81.2 percent of men in that age group had a job.

13. One recent survey found that one out of every three Americans would not be able to make a mortgage or rent payment next month if they suddenly lost their current job.

14. The Federal Reserve recently announced that the total net worth of U.S. households declined by 4.1 percent in the 3rd quarter of 2011 alone.

15. According to a recent study conducted by the BlackRock Investment Institute, the ratio of household debt to personal income in the United States is now 154 percent.

16. As the economy has slowed down, so has the number of marriages. According to a Pew Research Center analysis, only 51 percent of all Americans that are at least 18 years old are currently married. Back in 1960, 72 percent of all U.S. adults were married.

17. The U.S. Postal Service has lost more than 5 billion dollars over the past year.

18. In Stockton, California home prices have declined 64 percent from where they were at when the housing market peaked.

19. Nevada has had the highest foreclosure rate in the nation for 59 months in a row.

20. If you can believe it, the median price of a home in Detroit is now just $6000.

21. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 18 percent of all homes in the state of Florida are sitting vacant. That figure is 63 percent larger than it was just ten years ago.

22. New home construction in the United States is on pace to set a brand new all-time record low in 2011.

23. 19 percent of all American men between the ages of 25 and 34 are now living with their parents.

24. Electricity bills in the United States have risen faster than the overall rate of inflation for five years in a row.

25. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, health care costs accounted for just 9.5 percent of all personal consumption back in 1980. Today they account for approximately 16.3 percent.

26. One study found that approximately 41 percent of all working age Americans either have medical bill problems or are currently paying off medical debt.

27. If you can believe it, one out of every seven Americans has at least 10 credit cards.

28. The United States spends about 4 dollars on goods and services from China for every one dollar that China spends on goods and services from the United States.

29. It is being projected that the U.S. trade deficit for 2011 will be 558.2 billion dollars.

30. The retirement crisis in the United States just continues to get worse. According to the Employee Benefit Research Institute, 46 percent of all American workers have less than $10,000 saved for retirement, and 29 percent of all American workers have less than $1,000 saved for retirement.

31. Today, one out of every six elderly Americans lives below the federal poverty line.

32. According to a study that was just released, CEO pay at America’s biggest companies rose by 36.5 percent in just one recent 12 month period.

33. Today, the “too big to fail” banks are larger than ever.  The total assets of the six largest U.S. banks increased by 39 percent between September 30, 2006 and September 30, 2011.

34. The six heirs of Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton have a net worth that is roughly equal to the bottom 30 percent of all Americans combined.

35. According to an analysis of Census Bureau data done by the Pew Research Center, the median net worth for households led by someone 65 years of age or older is 47 times greater than the median net worth for households led by someone under the age of 35.

36. If you can believe it, 37 percent of all U.S. households that are led by someone under the age of 35 have a net worth of zero or less than zero.

37. A higher percentage of Americans is living in extreme poverty (6.7 percent) than has ever been measured before.

38. Child homelessness in the United States is now 33 percent higher than it was back in 2007.

39. Since 2007, the number of children living in poverty in the state of California has increased by 30 percent.

40. Sadly, child poverty is absolutely exploding all over America.  According to the National Center for Children in Poverty, 36.4 percent of all children that live in Philadelphia are living in poverty, 40.1 percent of all children that live in Atlanta are living in poverty, 52.6 percent of all children that live in Cleveland are living in poverty and 53.6 percent of all children that live in Detroit are living in poverty.

41. Today, one out of every seven Americans is on food stamps and one out of every four American children is on food stamps.

42. In 1980, government transfer payments accounted for just 11.7 percent of all income. Today, government transfer payments account for more than 18 percent of all income.

43. A staggering 48.5 percent of all Americans live in a household that receives some form of government benefits. Back in 1983, that number was below 30 percent.

44. Right now, spending by the federal government accounts for about 24 percent of GDP. Back in 2001, it accounted for just 18 percent.

45. For fiscal year 2011, the U.S. federal government had a budget deficit of nearly 1.3 trillion dollars. That was the third year in a row that our budget deficit has topped one trillion dollars.

46. If Bill Gates gave every single penny of his fortune to the U.S. government, it would only cover the U.S. budget deficit for about 15 days.

47. Amazingly, the U.S. government has now accumulated a total debt of 15 trillion dollars. When Barack Obama first took office the national debt was just 10.6 trillion dollars.

48. If the federal government began right at this moment to repay the U.S. national debt at a rate of one dollar per second, it would take over 440,000 years to pay off the national debt.

49. The U.S. national debt has been increasing by an average of more than 4 billion dollars per day since the beginning of the Obama administration.

50. During the Obama administration, the U.S. government has accumulated more debt than it did from the time that George Washington took office to the time that Bill Clinton took office.

Of course, after going through all these numbers, the obvious question is, “how has it come to this?” The Economic Collapse has a simple answer:

. . . the heart of our economic problems is the Federal Reserve.  The Federal Reserve is a perpetual debt machine, it has almost completely destroyed the value of the U.S. dollar and it has an absolutely nightmarish track record of incompetence.  If the Federal Reserve system had never been created, the U.S. economy would be in far better shape.  The federal government needs to shut down the Federal Reserve and start issuing currency that is not debt-based.

But who among America’s leaders has the will and determination to do this? Judging by how the Obama administration has conducted itself thus far, it probably won’t consider (let alone implement) any of the suggestions mentioned in the above. Therefore, that leaves only the GOP candidates.

Who among them has the best chance to restore economic stability? Who is the most likely to return the U.S. to prosperity?

“Hopefully next year more Americans than ever will wake up, because 2012 is going to represent a huge turning point for this country,” TEC writes.

Indeed, 2012 may be one of the biggest turning points this country has ever seen.

What do YOU think, America?     It’s time to ACT !!!     Get Involved !!!

Gadabout

No Comments - Click here to leave a comment