Nearly one-fifth of full-time employed Americans have raided retirement accounts in the past year to cover emergencies, according to a national Bankrate survey.
Despite increasing signs of a stabilizing U.S. economy, 19 percent of Americans — including 17 percent of full-time workers — have been compelled to take money from their retirement savings in the last year to cover urgent financial needs, the Financial Security Index found.
Though 80 percent of full-time workers didn’t dip into retirement funds, far too many consumers are ill-prepared for emergencies, says Kim McGrigg, manager of community and media relations at Money Management International, a credit counseling agency.
“Perhaps the most alarming thing about these numbers is that they suggest a lack of other options,” she says. “Consumers generally consider using retirement funds only as a last resort.”
Michael Masiello, founder of the Masiello & Associates wealth management firm in Rochester, N.Y., agrees. “I believe that 17 percent of full-time workers taking early withdrawals is a higher than normal number, and it’s certainly higher than it should be,” he says.
The potential consequences of tapping retirement funds include early withdrawal fees, taxes and the loss of compound earnings — not to mention the prospect of being unable to retire.
While workers might be able to replenish the funds pilfered from tax-advantaged accounts once they regain their financial footing, one of the main benefits of long-term savings is time and compound interest. An early withdrawal of $10,000 is not just $10,000. It’s actually $10,000 plus whatever that money would have earned over the lifetime of the account. Furthermore, with penalties and taxes an early $10,000 withdrawal may only yield $6,500 if you’re in a 25 percent tax bracket.
Compounding gains turns money into a snowball, gaining size as it rolls forward. Without the advantages of compounding, workers who take an early withdrawal will later need to sock away more savings than they otherwise would have in order to fund retirement.
Read more:
Americans raiding retirement funds
I grew up in the Netherlands and was in Germany many times. On one visit, my parents took me to Frankfurt to a concentration camp called Dachau. There I saw the ovens where untold thousands of people were cremated, the showers where they were gassed to death and the graves in which they were buried. I saw something else: on top of one of the graves I watched a boy dribbling his soccer ball.
I remember feeling contempt for him. Beneath his feet where he ran lay the bodies of murdered human beings.
This had a profound effect on me. From that moment on I never trusted any form of government and have harbored a deep suspicion of anyone who would follow it without question.
I also had a question: Why did they do it? It’s not a question that most children ask, but, having seen the effects of what the German people did during the second world war with my own eyes, I did.
Song:Everybody Wants to Rule the World
Where does one even start with this one: US launches air campaign against oil rich country under pretext of humanitarian intervention (while ignoring comparable events in Syria and Iran). US realizes it does not actually use Libyan oil, government runs out of money, hits debt ceiling, leading to decision to pull out of Libya after it is uncovered that CIA operatives had been laying the groundwork for a government overthrow for months, and a scramble to avoid Iraq deja vu ensues. US hands over military campaign to ragtag NATO force led by France. NATO “air superiority” force bombs rebel units; Libyan rebels lose previously held positions and oil wells. Libyan government on verge of repelling US and NATO forces, leading to… NATO runs out of ammunition. There is no point to even comment on this increasingly more surreal chain of events.
From Defense News:
NATO is running short of precision bombs and other munitions in its Libyan operation against the forces of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, The Washington Post reported April 15.
Citing unnamed senior NATO and U.S. officials, the newspaper said the shortage highlights the limitations of Britain, France and other European countries in sustaining even a relatively small military action.
The shortage of European munitions, along with the limited number of aircraft available, has raised doubts among some officials about whether the United States can continue to avoid returning to the air campaign, the report said.
So far, the NATO commander has not requested their deployment, The Post noted.
But several U.S. military officials said they anticipated being called back into the fight, the paper said.
Currently, only six out of 28 nations are conducting air strikes, while France and Britain carry out half of them. The other half are conducted by Belgium, Denmark, Norway and Canada.
Bottom line: this whole “plan” has been a total disaster from the beginning. And good luck Obama trying to sell a repeat US incursion in what even the idiot electorate now sees through as nothing than another Bush-like attempt to extract oil and implement Halliburton as the chief executive authority. That particular record has already been played.
View Source Article
Gold is approaching $1,500 an ounce this morning as it hits a new record, while silver surpasses $43, as fiscal pressures weigh on U.S. markets. The Dow has fallen almost 200 points in early trading.
S&P maintained the AAA rating of the United States, but cited the continued unresolved budget deficits as the reason for its statement that there is a one-in-three chance that it would lower its rating on the U.S. within two years
“Because the U.S. has, relative to its ‘AAA’ peers, what we consider to be very large budget deficits and rising government indebtedness and the path to addressing these is not clear to us, we have revised our outlook on the long-term rating to negative from stable,” the agency said in a statement.
This announcement will put further pressure on the dollar, and will most likely give weight to discussions held by George Soros and crew at Bretton Woods II about managing the global economy in the face of a U.S. dollar collapse.
Sources for this story:
Rueters/CNBC: http://www.cnbc.com/id/42643384
View Source
President Obama today signals the return of America to the forefront of the international effort in Libya, writing a joint article with David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy in which the three leaders commit their countries to pursue military action until Colonel Gaddafi has been removed.
In the joint article, Obama reverses America’s earlier cautious approach to the conflict – which saw the US hand control to Nato and withdraw fighter planes just days after the intervention began – and signs up his country to the more muscular intervention of his European colleagues.
Obama’s new interest could transform the efforts of the international community after three days of talks in the Gulf state of Qatar in effect came to nothing.
Writing in Washington Post, the Times and Le Figaro (in French), the three leaders say the world would have committed an “unconscionable betrayal” if the Libyan leader is left in place, putting rebels who have been fighting against the Gaddafi regime at the mercy of his government. If left, Libya risks becoming a failed state, they write.
Obama, Sarkozy and Cameron call on Gaddafi to “go and go for good”, rejecting demands for an immediate ceasefire and a negotiated exit for the Libyan dictator.
Diplomats are considering how the language of the United Nations mandate can accommodate a more active role on the ground.
In the piece, the three leaders acknowledge the legal constrictions but suggest they must overcome them: “Our duty and our mandate under UN Security Council Resolution 1973 is to protect civilians, and we are doing that. It is not to remove Gaddafi by force. But it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Gaddafi in power. The international criminal court is rightly investigating the crimes committed against civilians and the grievous violations of international law. It is unthinkable that someone who has tried to massacre his own people can play a part in their future government.”
Yesterday Gaddafi was seen driving through Tripoli on what seemed to be a victory parade. His soldiers bombarded the city of Misrata with shells.
In their article the three leaders call the attack on Misrata a “medieval siege … to strangle its population into submission”.
They write: “The brave citizens of those towns that have held out against forces that have been mercilessly targeting them would face a fearful vengeance if the world accepted [Gaddafi staying]. It would be an unconscionable betrayal.
“So long as Gaddafi is in power, Nato and its coalition partners must maintain their operations so that civilians remain protected and the pressure on the regime builds … Britain, France and the United States will not rest until the UN security council resolutions have been implemented and the Libyan people can choose their own future.”
The Times reported on its publication that the article originally began as a collaboration between Cameron and Sarkozy, coinciding with the prime minister’s trip to Paris on Wednesday to discuss the military action.
A draft was sent to the White House as a courtesy, prompting a request from Obama to add his name. Diplomatic sources said that only minor changes were made to accommodate him.
View Source Article
This is a pdf file that you can load and pass on…
Testimony – Idaho Wolf Disaster Declaration – Apr 03 2011
PAZ (peace in spanish) People Against Zionist is a little social networking group and hopefully future political party started up on facebook by paul topete. Its a way for us to share events and stay aware of the doings of the nefarious creatures, please join
PAZ FACEBOOK PAGE
THE PARTY Blog page
by Tanya Greene, Center for Justice
Recent news reports suggest that Pfc. Bradley Manning, accused of leaking government files to Wikileaks, is being held by our government — alone, often naked, in a small isolation cell for months at a time as he awaits legal proceedings to commence against him. Many Americans are appalled by the thought of this kind of treatment. While it appears these confinement conditions serve no purpose other than to degrade Pfc. Manning and break his spirit, they provide an important opportunity for the nation to reflect on the deeply damaging impact of solitary confinement.
Sen. John McCain, who was held in solitary confinement as a prisoner during the Vietnam War, once asserted: “it’s an awful thing, solitary…it crushes your spirit and weakens your resistance more effectively than any other form of mistreatment.” It’s hard to believe that such things could happen in America.
But the truth is that such things happen in America every day. Tens of thousands of prisoners in the U.S. are treated similarly, and sometimes worse. For these individuals, solitary confinement means being locked alone in a solid-walled cell for 23-24 hours a day with little human contact or interaction, reduced or no natural light (or sometimes cells are illuminated for 24 hours a day), strict regulation of access to amenities (often meaning very little reading material, no TV, and no radio), greater constraints on visitation (no physical contact with friends or family, including sons and daughters), and the inability to participate in group activities, including eating with others. Often, prisoners are kept in solitary confinement for months and even years, and sometimes decades. One Virginia man has been locked in solitary for 10 years for his religiously based refusal to cut his hair.
The devastating effects of solitary confinement have long been well known. Dr. Sandra Schank, California prison psychiatrist admitted: “It’s a standard psychiatric concept, if you put people in isolation, they will go insane. Most people in isolation will fall apart.” In a 2005 submission to the U.S. Supreme Court, a group of psychologists and psychiatrists concluded that “no study of the effects of solitary or Supermax-like confinement that lasted longer than 60 days failed to find evidence of negative psychological effects.” Solitary confinement can also violate the international law the United States is so quick to cite in reference to other countries.
Prison officials claim this punishment of last resort is reserved for the “worst of the worst.” However, more and more prisoners are put into “the hole” for minor infractions, often because of mental illness or cognitive disorders left untreated, resulting in prison rule violations.
And the boom in the building of prisons devoted to solitary confinement (also known as “Supermax” prisons) in the 1990s means more space despite limited need. As a result, the U.S. locks more than 20,000 people in solitary confinement each day in Supermax prisons in more than 30 states, and thousands more in other prisons and jails across the country.
Further, at least 10 to 20 percent of prisoners in solitary confinement suffer from mental illness — either pre-existing or induced through solitary confinement. Some states admit to many more. Even children housed in adult prisons — a terrifying proposition anyway — are often kept in maddening isolation “for their own safety.”
The Colorado legislature is currently considering restricting the overuse of solitary confinement and, in particular, making sure the mentally ill are not further harmed by these conditions. Legislators got emotional at the horrors related during the hearing this month on the issue. Unfortunately the Colorado Department of Corrections has claimed making these changes is too expensive for the state and may succeed in killing the bill. To aid the ACLU of Colorado in this effort, click here. The ACLU affiliates in New Mexico and Texas are also engaged in legislative battles to reduce the use of solitary confinement in their states.
Critics have rightly pointed out that the our government should not violate the fundamental human rights of Pfc. Manning, regardless of any crimes he may have committed. The same is true for every other prisoner in solitary confinement in this great country.
View Source Article
Government Is Not a Coercive Monopoly
Taken from Lew Rockwell’s Libertarian Anarchism:Responses to Ten Objections
Now, one objection that’s sometimes raised isn’t so much an objection to anarchism as an objection to the moral argument for anarchism: well, look, it’s not really a coercive monopoly. It’s not as though people haven’t consented to this because there’s a certain sense in which people have consented to the existing system — by living within the borders of a particular territory, by accepting the benefits the government offers, and so forth, they have, in effect, consented. Just as if you walk into a restaurant and sit down and say, “I’ll have a steak,” you don’t have to explicitly mention that you are agreeing to pay for it; it’s just sort of understood. By sitting down in the restaurant and asking for the steak, you are agreeing to pay for it. Likewise, the argument goes, if you sit down in the territory of this given state, and you accept benefits of police protection or something, then you’ve implicitly agreed to abide by its requirements. Now, notice that even if this argument works, it doesn’t settle the pragmatic question of whether this is the best working system.
But I think there is something dubious about this argument. It’s certainly true that if I go onto someone else’s property, then it seems like there’s an expectation that as long as I’m on their property I have to do as they say. I have to follow their rules. If I don’t want to follow their rules, then I’ve got to leave. So, I invite you over to my house, and when you come in I say, “You have to wear the funny hat.” And you say, “What’s this?” And I say, “Well, that’s the way it works in my house. Everyone has to wear the funny hat. Those are my rules.” Well, you can’t say, “I won’t wear the hat but I’m staying anyway.” These are my rules — they may be dumb rules, but I can do it.
Now suppose that you’re at home having dinner, and I’m your next-door-neighbor, and I come and knock on your door. You open the door, and I come in and I say, “You have to wear the funny hat.” And you say, “Why is this?” And I say, “Well, you moved in next door to me, didn’t you? By doing that, you sort of agreed.” And you say, “Well, wait a second! When did I agree to this?”
I think that the person who makes this argument is already assuming that the government has some legitimate jurisdiction over this territory. And then they say, well, now, anyone who is in the territory is therefore agreeing to the prevailing rules. But they’re assuming the very thing they’re trying to prove — namely that this jurisdiction over the territory is legitimate. If it’s not, then the government is just one more group of people living in this broad general geographical territory. But I’ve got my property, and exactly what their arrangements are I don’t know, but here I am in my property and they don’t own it — at least they haven’t given me any argument that they do — and so, the fact that I am living in “this country” means I am living in a certain geographical region that they have certain pretensions over — but the question is whether those pretensions are legitimate. You can’t assume it as a means to proving it.
Another thing is, one of the problems with these implicit social contract arguments is that it’s not clear what the contract is. In the case of ordering food in a restaurant, everyone pretty much knows what the contract is. So you could run an implicit consent argument there. But no one would suggest that you could buy a house the same way. There are all these rules and things like that. When it’s something complicated no one says, “You just sort of agreed by nodding your head at some point,” or something. You have to find out what it is that’s actually in the contract; what are you agreeing to? It’s not clear if no one knows what exactly the details of the contract are. It’s not that persuasive.
