No Social Security for Baby-Boomers

In the blog post, Our View on retirement income: Afraid Social Security won't be there for you? It will by Carls Bright Corner, I believe him to be incorrect and uninformed.

For the first time in nearly 30 years, the system will pay out more benefits than it receives in payroll taxes both this year and next. The only way to fix this problem would be one of three reasons or a combination:

• Social Security contributions will go up.

• Social Security payments will go down.

• Retirement age will be increased.

So why is Social Security in the red? Well one would be that people are living longer, meaning more people to pay out to. Another reason, and perhaps the main reason is the way the government handles our money once it reaches Social Security hands. Once you spend your hard earned money on Social Security, the government takes it and spends it. A few examples would be:

• Debt reduction
• Welfare
• Military
• Government salaries
  

Did you know that when Social Security was enacted, the average life expectancy for a male in the United States was 62? That's why the payouts started at age 65. Also, most of the eligible recipients were males most didn't live long enough to collect a single payment. The ones that did only lasted a few years on average. So in contrast, the reasons it was started by the Reagan administration weren't completely truthful, and now that it's broke, our generation may never see it.

The Federal Reserve is NOT Federal and is NOT a Reserve

The Federal Reserve Act was passed at 11:45 p.m. on Christmas Eve in 1913 by congress. Congress is solely granted the power “To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;” by Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution. The fact that the congress handed this power to the fed without a Constitutional Amendment is unconstitutional, wrong and offensive.

The FED is the central bank of the United States. The problem is that it is private and for profit just like any other bank. They control the currency and credit for our nation and they seek to make profits off the backs of the American taxpayers. What is worst is that they are secretive. They have NEVER BEEN AUDITED. Their books are sealed and they refuse to let even Congress know what they are doing or where they direct the American people’s money. The value is not based on a hard commodity like gold, nor is it backed up by silver. Instead the "money" in circulation is printed out of thin air and is essentially backed up by your future work. The dollars in circulation are really notes of debt, they are borrowed by the federal government from the private FED against your future earnings just like you would get a mortgage for example.The "money" which is all borrowed from the FED must be paid back with interest which is impossible because they print and digitally issue far more currency then we could actually pay back when viewed against our GDP.

I really recommend anyone interested in learning more about the FED read the book "End the FED" by Ron Paul. I am reading it now and it really paints a clear and simple picture of what the FED is, how it work and why we need to replace it.

"Since 1913 the dollar has lost over 95f its purchasing power, aided and abetted by the Federal Reserve's loose monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Transparency Act would achieve much-needed transparency of the Federal Reserve System." - Ron Paul

This inflation is a hidden tax, much larger then the rest of the taxes combined.

Yes We're Still At WAR

Dealing with the question, Are we still at war? I say yes, our nation declared war on Afghanistan on October 7, 2001, also known as Operation Enduring Freedom. I have first hand account of this information, and it only lasted 4 months and since then it has been a "peace keeping" mission. I mostly hear about how many soldiers and marines have died since the start of the war, but what many people don't know is that during the actual extent of the war, when then rules of engagement were what they should be, there were very, very few deaths. Even more so when compared to taliban forces. Since the end of the "war" at around the first 4 months, the rules of engagements were changed to comply with "peace keeping" operations under the Genieva Convention. That is where the problem lies. The war wasn't finished, and our nations premature declaration of a win is what has led to the loss of so many American lives. If we were still invested in an actual "war", our American death toll would be much less. Road side bombs weren't even heard of during the actual war, which is the number 1 killer in both Afghanistan and Iraq, because we had them on the run. Now specifically Afghanistan, yes we gave munitions to (most important are the stinger missles), which they used to defeat the Russian air attacks, and ultimately gave them the upper hand in the war. Then we just left, and gave no aid to the innocent people in Afghanistan, and that is why we're at war with a disgruntled nation today. Which is also why we can't pull out of a war prematurely again. The 2000 American lives that we've lost may sound great today, but in no way compares to the number of American lives (more then likely on our own soil) we will lose in the future, if we don't successfully change their government. Our pulling out now will only show our weakness, and give them strength, strength to attack again. This is one war that has to be won first, and with leaders like Obama, that doesn't seem likely.