29% up 40% from 2004
I want to thank all who supported me on Tuesday. Though I was hoping for a larger increase in support, a 40% increase over 2004 is not bad considering I am challenging an incumbent.
I began pulling my signs down at 6:00 PM Tuesday evening and so far from just Fort Wayne have recovered 293 signs. Looking at the signs I pulled, I do not believe I lost any do to wind or weather. Many of the signs I put out were used in 2002, 2004 and 2006 and still look good enough to use in 2008. If you should see any of my signs, either pull it down for me or give me a call at (260) 637-0741 or email me at repealss@juno.com and I will have it picked up.
I will be making some changes in the coming months. First I will be changing my web site from the home built one I began in 1998 to a more professional looking site. I will attempt to organize information and material better. I will create a new section dealing with just energy. I have ten years experience in the nuclear field, studied ethanol, wind, solar, coal and my experience operating a 1200-psi steam plant. It is time to straighten out the media and politicians concerning ethanol and what are renewable energy sources.
I will also be promoting my mini series on Social Security called "Snookered." Feed back from those I gave it to who were, how should I say not supportive of my plan for Social Security, have been extremely positive. They told me they had learned more about Social Security in the first half-hour than they had previously known. They were very glad they had taken the time to watch it.
posted by William Larsen @ 9:29 AM
2 Comments:
I have to hand it to you Larsen. You have some balls to publicly oppose the most largest source of retirement income for people over 65 (a group who frankly haven't much else to do but vote in an election year). By all means please keep running, the more you chip away at a goofball like Souder's support the better. If nothing else he'll have to behave somewhat more rationally to capture the middle.
I have a question for you Seth. Where do you get the idea that social security is the largest source of retirement income for those over 65? For example the average SS Benefit is about $894 a month or about $11,000 a year. Yet 1/3 of beneficiaries have an income over $75,000 a year according to IRS date in 2002. When you subtract out pensions and SS benefits, the income drops to just over $50,000. But then is income what we need to be looking at? For example a person saves a good number of years for retirement. Is this savings or setting aside of resources to be used to provide for needs in retirement? If so, then income is not the sole source of support, but that principal is also to be used. Check this table out for how much of your needs would come from income and how much from principal. Roughly speaking half your needs should come from principal and half from income over your life. Early in retirement most of your needs come from income on assets while later in life most comes from principal..
http://www.justsayno.50megs.com/tables/percent_income.html
But then let us look at the numbers. There are 36.5 million SS-OASI beneficiaries in the U.S. There are over 117 million potential voters under age 46 in teh U.S. If you were born after 1985 the best you can do from social security, no matter what they do (raise taxes, cut benefits, raise retirement age) is 29 cents in paid benefits for each dollar of taxes paid (including interest at the U.S. Treasury rate).
Do you think Seniors have earned their Social Security Benefit?
When a person says “We Earned it!” what exactly do they mean?
To me, this phrase is a righteous euphemism for making the more truthful statement: "We were snookered by this Social Security Ponzi scheme, and now we are going to snooker the next generation!"
If Social Security benefits have been "earned" who is obligated to pay benefits to those who "earned" them? Workers? On a regressive tax basis? Why? Why perpetuate a fraud upon the innocent? Who is responsible for bearing the burden of a fraud? The person defrauded? Or an innocent or unborn child?
Post a Comment
<< Home