What the 2012 election taught us

What the 2012 election taught us

There are 10313 comments on the The Washington Post story from Nov 6, 2012, titled What the 2012 election taught us. In it, The Washington Post reports that:

We've been scouring the data for clues as to what we should learn from what happened tonight as President Obama relatively easily claimed a second term.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Washington Post.

Since: Nov 11

Marengo, OH

#9925 Apr 10, 2013
OBAMA ATTACKS IRAs

US GOVERNMENT TO DECIDE HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH FOR YOUR RETIREMENT

US Government To Decide How Much Is Enough For Your Retirement


Welcome to the new US. Socialism always has the same predictable process. Once the government collectivizes a sector then the politicos and bureaucrats get to work on "improving the system". In a private enterprise, that'd mean offering more to your customers for a cheaper price. In government, it is always the opposite, finding ways to reduce benefits for their "customers".

This is why ObamaCare is and will be a disaster to anyone interested in having quality medical care and choice in the US. Once the government uses its force to gain a monopoly on a sector like medical care then all of a sudden it now becomes everyone else's business what you do with your own body. You smoke? You should be stopped! Don't wear a seatbelt? You should be fined. Why? Because we are all paying for each other's medical care and so it now becomes everyone else's business what you do with your health because it could potentially cost them more money.

The same has been happening since the US government has had a multi-decade long monopoly on retirement savings (IRAs). Since they get to make the rules they get to decide just how much is enough for your retirement and that is exactly what will be happening next week when President Obama will be releasing his budget plan which will limit how much a wealthy individual can keep in those tax-reducing IRA plans and other retirement accounts.

According to a senior administration official, wealthy taxpayers can currently “accumulate many millions of dollars in these accounts, substantially more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement saving"...and of course in the communist administration's eyes, that's a real shame. The job of government is of course to "level the playing field" by stealing from and putting up obstacles for those with "too much."

What is the "reasonable amount" that he thinks is enough? The numbers being bandied about seem to indicate $3 million. Sounds like quite a bit, right? Well, let's look further at the proposal.

"The budget would limit an individual’s total balance across tax-preferred accounts to an amount sufficient to finance an annuity of not more than $205,000 per year in retirement, or about $3 million in 2013."

Cont...

Since: Nov 11

Marengo, OH

#9926 Apr 10, 2013
Cont...

So, according to them,$205,000 per year is sufficient and people should not be allowed to have more than that in retirement savings. But, remember, disbursements from an IRA are taxable, so that $205,000, if you lived in any number of states where total income taxes are over 50%, very quickly brings that number down to around $100,000 after theft... or tax as they call it. Of course, that is just the beginning of other payments to the state. Your average person with a $3 million IRA probably lives in at least a $1 million house. If that person lived in New Jersey where property tax averages 1.89% of property value, then you can take another $19,000 off of the remaining $100,000 for property tax payments to rent his own home.

Of course, there will be numerous - countless really - other taxes paid over the course of the year... gasoline tax, cigarette taxes, alcohol taxes and numerous others. But, even without including those we are already below $7,000/month.

But here is the real kicker. If that person did take the $205,000/year annuity, their retirement funds would only last them fourteen years. Of course, some may state that they could and should be earning a return during that time which will extend it.

But your average person who owns mostly 2% paying dividend stocks or 2% paying Treasuries is actually losing nearly 10% per year to monetary inflation. The US central bank's current rate of money printing - which does and will turn into price increases - is over 10%. If they are losing 8% per year on that $3 million then it will only be ten years before that $3 million is actually only worth $1.3 million in real dollars.

That $205,000 per annum, at today's monetary inflation rate, also will only be equivalent to $90,000 in ten years time. After all the taxes to be paid that person would be likely eating cat food just to survive.

These are the wonders of the American Dream today. It is turning into a nightmare. They have you coming and going from all sides. And then, if you manage to survive all the taxes and inflation, whatever remaining money you have left will be mostly gutted by the death tax. Yes, there is a tax to die in the land of the free. And don't try to commit suicide either. That's illegal.

Cont...

Since: Nov 11

Marengo, OH

#9927 Apr 10, 2013
Cont...

Next Confiscation

This, of course, is the warm up for big confiscation of retirement account money later on... a topic that has already been discussed openly in Congress. I can't understand why anyone would put their money in a retirement vehicle under government control. That's like putting your child in a cage full of lions for safekeeping.

A much better option would be a self-directed IRA like the one we offer here at TDV. Also, did you know that you can buy real estate with your IRA? A good option would be real estate in another nation-state since the US government would have a very hard time confiscating that. You could invest in an income-producing condo in beautiful Acapulco, for example...or you could buy investment property in our burgeoning liberty-minded community at Galt's Gulch, Chile.

You could also invest in precious metals in a self-directed IRA and get a significant amount of them into jurisdictions that are much less likely to collapse in the coming years (for more on doing that, see Getting Your Gold Out Of Dodge - free to TDV subscribers). And it wouldn't hurt to take some of those savings and invest in a foreign passport in a place that doesn't view your assets as their own.

The central planners in the US and most Western governments have and will decide how much is "enough" for you to have and if you manage to still have significant assets after that, they'll continue to whittle them away via taxation and inflation. It's all easily predictable as this is where things always go once things are socialized or collectivized.

As Winston Churchill said, "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."

We don't suggest you wait much longer before removing yourself and your assets from a system set on ensuring the equal sharing of misery.
--

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#9928 Apr 11, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>No one takes you serious
Anyone with fifty cents can take you, dear.

Time to change the bib.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#9929 Apr 11, 2013
martinezjosei wrote:
OBAMA ATTACKS IRAs
Funny, it's been two weeks since you told us all Obama was taking over the savings accounts.

Every time you open your mouth a sticky lie tumbles out, Jose.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#9930 Apr 11, 2013
martinezjosei wrote:
Cont...
Flagged for spam, Jose.

PS: you don't think anyone reads your copy & paste cr&p do ya?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#9931 Apr 11, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Anyone with fifty cents can take you, dear.
Time to change the bib.
you mean yourself.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#9932 Apr 11, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>you mean yourself.
The ocean called, George... they are all out of you...

Since: Nov 11

Marengo, OH

#9933 Apr 11, 2013
The Toomey-Manchin Proposal Will Allow Doctors to Block Your Right to Guns

The proposal will allow a doctor to add a patient to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) without ever telling the patient he or she has been added.

There would be no due process requirement. Not all doctors will be able to do it with the same ease, but many will. Knowing a doctor could add him to a federal database as mentally ill without his knowledge could potentially dissuade a patient from going to the doctor in the first place to get help.

Worse, if the doctor does so and makes a mistake, the patient would have to actively work through the system to get himself removed — guilty before being proven innocent. In some states, should a doctor flag you as having mental illness without your knowledge, you may very well see the state come collect your previously purchased guns.

Activist mental health providers will probably be overly aggressive in adding people to the list. Give it five years in liberal areas and people who believe in the physical resurrection of Christ will probably get automatic entry onto the list.

http://www.redstate.com/2013/04/10/the-toomey...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#9934 Apr 11, 2013
martinezjosei wrote:
The Toomey-Manchin Proposal Will Allow Doctors to Block Your Right to Guns
The proposal will allow a doctor to add a patient to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) without ever telling the patient he or she has been added.
There would be no due process requirement. Not all doctors will be able to do it with the same ease, but many will. Knowing a doctor could add him to a federal database as mentally ill without his knowledge could potentially dissuade a patient from going to the doctor in the first place to get help.
Worse, if the doctor does so and makes a mistake, the patient would have to actively work through the system to get himself removed — guilty before being proven innocent. In some states, should a doctor flag you as having mental illness without your knowledge, you may very well see the state come collect your previously purchased guns.
Activist mental health providers will probably be overly aggressive in adding people to the list. Give it five years in liberal areas and people who believe in the physical resurrection of Christ will probably get automatic entry onto the list.
http://www.redstate.com/2013/04/10/the-toomey...
starting to rewrite Obamacare or risk Obamacare.

Hah! Obamacare Provision Forbids Democrats From Restricting Guns and Ammo

For these reasons, the following language did, indeed, become a part of the nations controversial health care reform law:

(c) PROTECTION OF SECOND AMENDMENT GUN RIGHTS.

(1) WELLNESS AND PREVENTION PROGRAMS. A wellness and health promotion activity implemented under subsection (a)(1)(D) may not require the disclosure or collection of any information relating to

(A) the presence or storage of a lawfully- possessed firearm or ammunition in the residence or on the property of an individual; or

(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition by an individual.&#8232;

(2) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION.None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used for the collection of any in- formation relating to

(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition;

(B) the lawful use of a firearm or ammunition; or

(C) the lawful storage of a firearm or ammunition.

(3) LIMITATION ON DATABASES OR DATA BANKS.None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used to maintain records of individual ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/01/hah-o...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#9935 Apr 11, 2013
martinezjosei wrote:
The Toomey-Manchin Proposal Will Allow Doctors to Block Your Right to Guns
We can agree the NRA continues to fight the 90- percent of Americans who want background checks when the NRA demands the right to sell firearms to felons.

PS: Toomey and Manchin both receive A+ rating from NRA.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#9936 Apr 11, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
We can agree the NRA continues to fight the 90- percent of Americans who want background checks when the NRA demands the right to sell firearms to felons.
PS: Toomey and Manchin both receive A+ rating from NRA.
Gee Whiz Barefootin' It, are you dizzy yet? I'd call you an moron, but that is two steps above an idiot. You aren't that intelligent.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#9937 Apr 11, 2013
Chicagoan by Birth wrote:
<quoted text>Gee Whiz Barefootin' It, are you dizzy yet?
Having a sausage jammed against your tonsils is cutting off your air supply, Afterbirth and clearly you are showing the long term repeated effects.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#9938 Apr 11, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Having a sausage jammed against your tonsils is cutting off your air supply, Afterbirth and clearly you are showing the long term repeated effects.
Gee Whiz Barefootin' It, you know all the slang? Why is that Barefootin' It? Still 'trying' to get passed out of the seventh grade, You go Gurl!!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#9939 Apr 11, 2013
Chicagoan by Birth wrote:
<quoted text>Gee Whiz Barefootin' It, you know all the slang?
You have the price list memorized, AfterBirth.

Best of luck on passing that GED exam!

“Bullsh*% Detector Enabled”

Since: Dec 08

Brooklyn, New York

#9940 Apr 12, 2013
martinezjosei wrote:
OBAMA ATTACKS IRAs

US GOVERNMENT TO DECIDE HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH FOR YOUR RETIREMENT

US Government To Decide How Much Is Enough For Your Retirement


Welcome to the new US. Socialism always has the same predictable process. Once the government collectivizes a sector then the politicos and bureaucrats get to work on "improving the system". In a private enterprise, that'd mean offering more to your customers for a cheaper price. In government, it is always the opposite, finding ways to reduce benefits for their "customers".

This is why ObamaCare is and will be a disaster to anyone interested in having quality medical care and choice in the US. Once the government uses its force to gain a monopoly on a sector like medical care then all of a sudden it now becomes everyone else's business what you do with your own body. You smoke? You should be stopped! Don't wear a seatbelt? You should be fined. Why? Because we are all paying for each other's medical care and so it now becomes everyone else's business what you do with your health because it could potentially cost them more money.

The same has been happening since the US government has had a multi-decade long monopoly on retirement savings (IRAs). Since they get to make the rules they get to decide just how much is enough for your retirement and that is exactly what will be happening next week when President Obama will be releasing his budget plan which will limit how much a wealthy individual can keep in those tax-reducing IRA plans and other retirement accounts.

According to a senior administration official, wealthy taxpayers can currently “accumulate many millions of dollars in these accounts, substantially more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement saving"...and of course in the communist administration's eyes, that's a real shame. The job of government is of course to "level the playing field" by stealing from and putting up obstacles for those with "too much."

What is the "reasonable amount" that he thinks is enough? The numbers being bandied about seem to indicate $3 million. Sounds like quite a bit, right? Well, let's look further at the proposal.

"The budget would limit an individual’s total balance across tax-preferred accounts to an amount sufficient to finance an annuity of not more than $205,000 per year in retirement, or about $3 million in 2013."

Cont...
Were you outraged with bush and the republicans as they continue to attack social security?

Since: Nov 11

Marengo, OH

#9941 Apr 13, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>starting to rewrite Obamacare or risk Obamacare.

Hah! Obamacare Provision Forbids Democrats From Restricting Guns and Ammo

For these reasons, the following language did, indeed, become a part of the nation’s controversial health care reform law:

(c) PROTECTION OF SECOND AMENDMENT GUN RIGHTS.—

‘‘(1) WELLNESS AND PREVENTION PROGRAMS.— A wellness and health promotion activity implemented under subsection (a)(1)(D) may not require the disclosure or collection of any information relating to—

‘‘(A) the presence or storage of a lawfully- possessed firearm or ammunition in the residence or on the property of an individual; or

‘‘(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition by an individual.&#8232;‘‘

(2) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION.—None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used for the collection of any in- formation relating to—

‘‘(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition;

‘‘(B) the lawful use of a firearm or ammunition; or

‘‘(C) the lawful storage of a firearm or ammunition.

‘‘(3) LIMITATION ON DATABASES OR DATA BANKS.—None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used to maintain records of individual ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/01/hah-o...
Good point!

Another proof of two points:

#1. Democrats do not care about anyone only their political careers while Liberals follow them as sheep.

#2. Liberalism ALWAYS self-destruct, always!!!

Since: Nov 11

Marengo, OH

#9942 Apr 13, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>We can agree the NRA continues to fight the 90- percent of Americans who want background checks when the NRA demands the right to sell firearms to felons.

PS: Toomey and Manchin both receive A+ rating from NRA.
90% of the Liberals do not want mental health information to be used due to "privacy" concerns!

Why?

Because 90% of Liberals are welfare ghetto alcohol drug filled brain mental health cases. That is why they voted for an incompetent Kenya Muslim no birth record, American hater, Bill Ayers friend community organizer from Kenya who had paid one million dollar to a battery of lawyers to keep his college transcripts hidden from idiots like YOU.

Since: Nov 11

Marengo, OH

#9943 Apr 13, 2013
Black Rhino wrote:
<quoted text>Were you outraged with bush and the republicans as they continue to attack social security?
Social security is a socialist ponzi scheme that is bankrupting the country!

Any socialist program is the death of a country.

Why do you think Liberals hate 401k and are working very hard to destroy our freedom to generate money for our own retirement?

Because it is not fair that a 401k investment returns you TEN TIMES better retirement that Social Security, so we must spread the misery, that is the only fair thing to do!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#9944 Apr 13, 2013
martinezjosei wrote:
<quoted text>
Social security is a socialist ponzi scheme that is bankrupting the country!
Any socialist program is the death of a country.
Why do you think Liberals hate 401k and are working very hard to destroy our freedom to generate money for our own retirement?
Because it is not fair that a 401k investment returns you TEN TIMES better retirement that Social Security, so we must spread the misery, that is the only fair thing to do!
Social Securitys Sham Guarantee

Social Security benefits are not guaranteed.

They are not guaranteed legally because workers have no contractual or property rights to any benefits whatsoever. In two landmark cases, Flemming v. Nestor and Helvering v. Davis, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Social Security taxes are not contributions or savings, but simply taxes, and that Social Security benefits are simply a government spending program, no different than, say, farm price supports. Congress and the president may change, reduce, or even eliminate benefits at any time.

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/s...

Property Rights: The Hidden Issue of Social Security Reform

One of the most enduring myths of Social Security is that a worker has a legal right to his Social Security benefits. Many workers assume that, if they pay Social Security taxes into the system, they have some sort of legal guarantee to the systems benefits. The truth is exactly the opposite. It has long been law that there is no legal right to Social Security. In two important cases, Helvering v. Davis and Flemming v. Nestor, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Social Security taxes are simply taxes and convey no property or contractual rights to Social Security benefits.

http://www.cato.org/publications/social-secur...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Mitt Romney Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News GOP at war with itself (Mar '16) 6 hr Chilli J 4,263
News News 3 Mins Ago Bannon savages Gop leaders in f... Dec 9 General Kabaka Oba 48
News Romney Has a Jobs Plan ... for China (Sep '12) Dec 7 Frank Gilley 29
News In slap at Romney, Trump says he wants Orrin Ha... Dec 6 Ecken 2
News Bannon blasts GOP leaders in contentious Alabam... Dec 6 Trump is a joke 3
News Former Colin Powell Aide: GOP Is 'Full of Racists' (Oct '12) Dec 5 Haleys Flag Removal 15
News Ron Paul Would Be Major Factor if He Went Third... (May '12) Nov 29 O Reilly Fired 3
More from around the web