tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7895164153505105997.post6529392198087611164..comments2024-01-17T00:45:37.075-08:00Comments on Bud Meyers: Bernie Sanders vs. Hillary Clinton on Social SecurityBud Meyershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02065020063363023395noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7895164153505105997.post-56164166175461247402015-06-08T21:20:23.321-07:002015-06-08T21:20:23.321-07:00Pa. Gov. Tom Wolf’s plan to reduce property taxes ...Pa. Gov. Tom Wolf’s plan to reduce property taxes directs the most relief to those who need it most: seniors on fixed incomes who are struggling to stay in their homes. According to the Governor’s Office, about 271,000 seniors will see their property tax bill reduced to zero. <br /><br />http://www.timesleader.com/news/opinion_columns/153885365/THEIR-VIEW-Retirees-hopeful-on-Pa.-budgetBud Meyershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02065020063363023395noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7895164153505105997.post-79144828767983677302015-06-08T20:49:50.769-07:002015-06-08T20:49:50.769-07:00/ -------------------- FIRST UPDATE: -------------.../ -------------------- FIRST UPDATE: ------------------/<br /><br />A study by the GAO shows that as many as half of all households with Americans 55 and older have no retirement savings at all. About 29% have no pension plan, no savings, no 401(k), no nothing. The figures are worse the lower down the socio-economic ladder you go. The results are tilted in favor of the wealthiest Americans, so the bottom half of the baby boomers, by wealth level, had only 4% of the retirement assets. The wealthiest 10% had 56% of the retirement assets.<br /><br />A report by the Federal Reserve revealed that 26% of those surveyed declared their retirement “plan” was to simply keep working; 12% didn’t plan to ever stop working; another 45% who did plan to retire intended to work to some extent to fill the financial gaps between their savings and their financial needs. In other words, only 17% didn’t plan to work after retiring. Unsurprisingly, the lower their savings totals, the more likely they were to say that they intended to keep working – clearly assuming that they’ll stay in good health into their 90s, and that the jobs will remain available. <br /><br />The bottom line, however, is that we can’t all be Walmart greeters. If you’re 30 and haven’t already started saving, you’re already behind.<br /><br />Much more here:<br />http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/jun/07/study-ramericans-retirement-401k-social-security<br /><br />/ ------------------- SECOND UPDATE: ------------------ /<br /><br />There is broad consensus across the political spectrum that Social Security benefits -- averaging around $16,000 per year -- are low, and that most Americans are not able to accumulate sufficient savings to adequately supplement them. <br /><br />Workers today need to be saving much more for retirement than their predecessors. Median household income has been largely stagnant over the past four decades, while many core expenses such as housing, health care, day care and education have grown. <br /><br />The Center for Retirement Research projects that 52 percent of today's working households will not have adequate income in retirement -- around two thirds when one takes health and long-term care costs into account.<br /><br />Expanding Social Security is the most promising way to avert the retirement income crisis looming for low- and middle-income workers. Social Security is far more efficient than private savings in several important ways. <br /><br />Much more here:<br /><br />http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-veghte/social-security-expansion_b_7505696.html<br />Bud Meyershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02065020063363023395noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7895164153505105997.post-80189250656424311062015-06-08T12:49:42.259-07:002015-06-08T12:49:42.259-07:00In 2008, the Democratic candidates debated 26 time...In 2008, the Democratic candidates debated 26 times during the primary. This year, the Democratic party has announced only 6 debates — and also introduced an exclusivity clause which disqualifies from the debates any candidate that participates in additional, unsanctioned candidate forums. In a campaign environment dominated by unlimited spending on 30-second television ads, the debates are one of the few opportunities to hear a conversation about serious issues between the candidates.<br /><br />PETITION:<br />http://act.credoaction.com/sign/dem_debates<br /><br />New York Times: Bernie Sanders said that Democrats need more debates to cut through the noise of attack ads and sound bites. He has even suggested that Republicans could participate in early debates.<br />http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/03/bernie-sanders-calls-for-more-and-earlier-debates/<br /><br />The political media has shown repeatedly that it is far more interested in manufacturing political scandals (or deeming who is and is not “viable”) rather than carrying on a serious conversation about the candidates’ positions on the vital issues. Voters should decide who will be the nominee. Not the media, not the Democratic National Committee, and whichever billionaire is writing the biggest superPAC checks. Bud Meyershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02065020063363023395noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7895164153505105997.post-21069530464491047842015-06-04T12:58:25.781-07:002015-06-04T12:58:25.781-07:00UPDATE:
Al Jazeera --- The Democratic Party needs...UPDATE:<br /><br />Al Jazeera --- The Democratic Party needs a swift kick in the ass: A grass-roots revolt from the left could remake the party into something electable again<br /><br />http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/6/the-democratic-party-needs-a-swift-kick-in-the-ass.html<br /><br />The party hasn’t had this little power since Herbert Hoover was president ... Of America’s two major political parties, the Republicans have become the party of extremists determined to privatize the commons, neuter the government’s ability to police polluters and corporate tax avoiders and redistribute wealth to the rich. The Democrats, on the other hand, have simply failed to stand for anything other than a watered-down version of what Republicans are proposing ... [The Democratic party machine] has made it clear they have no interest in changing course in their embrace of policies that disenfranchise the middle class, nor are they listening to the grass-roots movements demanding economic, environmental and racial justice. Even as the country moves further to the left, Democrats continue to lose ... What the blue party needs right now is a swift kick in the ass. And as much as independent parties like Socialist Alternative or the Green Party try to draw enough disaffected leftists from the Democratic Party in the next few election cycles, their ascent will remain a fantasy as long as America has winner-take-all elections ... Because primaries are almost always low-turnout elections, grass-roots movements such as Black Lives Matter and Occupy Wall Street can make powerful statements by running their own candidates and mobilizing their members to vote in Democratic primary elections AGAINST entrenched {Democratic] incumbents. If the incumbent is ousted in the primary, one of two things will happen: Either a candidate with an unabashedly progressive platform will be your new state representative, governor or member of Congress or a Republican against all those things will win the seat. Either way, the grass roots will have pulled the state party organization significantly to the left, making it known that all future candidates had better adopt the populist values demanded by the people or be defeated. And when the grass roots have successfully shifted the conversation to be about the issues affecting their communities and livelihoods rather than the false issues trotted out by party bosses, conservative Democrats and Republicans won’t hold their seats for long. <br /><br />* In other words, if the 43% who indentify as "Independents" (and others) didn't always vote for the "better of two evils", and if they didn't vote for people like Hillary Clinton (even if it means losing an election cycle to the GOP), it will move future Democrats more in the direction of people like FDR, Elizabth Warren or Bernie Sanders — that, or they'd lose their elections. It all makes sense. <br />Bud Meyershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02065020063363023395noreply@blogger.com