Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I was able to retire early because of the investments I made under Clinton AND Bush, Star. The market did quite well until the democrats took the senate and congress. Bush was too much of a twit to veto the spending that the dems wanted.Kinda of wish the video worked from mediamatters, I really don't know if it's by design or not, what I got was this. "But-----but in reality...
Fox News falsely claimed California workers would be forced to participate...
But in reality no one will be forced to contribute to California's proposed Secure Choice Retirement Savings Plan. The program would only be for workers whose employers don't already sponsor a pension plan or a 401(k) for their retirement, allowing them to pay into an account that would pay benefits based on account contributions and investment returns. Any workers who don't want to participate can opt out.
Ben Harris, a former senior economist with the President's Council of Economic Advisers, wrote at the Tax Policy Center's TaxVox blog that the program is "entirely voluntary," and the use of automatic enrollment which workers can opt out of has the potential to "bring more than 6 million workers into the retirement saving universe":
And-----and "the plan is reportedly likely to cost the California state government nothing"
.
"The video could not be loaded, either because the server or network failed or because the format is not supported"
So I really don't know how Fox presented it. The OP's site is wrong and there is an opt out option to SB 1234.
I just hope that if this passes that Ca. can invest more wisely with this pension bill than it does with the state employee pensions. It's been a disaster, so.....if it was me, I would take that 3% and invest it myself which which would have a much better chance of making money than the state of Ca.
What disaster are you talking about? After taking a hit (they did better than the market) during the Bush recession (didn't we all?) California pension fund investments have done better than the market.
"Both funds benefited from a year-long runup in global stock prices. They also made strategic investment changes in response to the 2008 market crash; CalPERS, for instance, overhauled its real estate portfolio to create more predictable results.
"These numbers are convincing evidence that CalPERS has the ability to produce good returns on a sustainable basis," said Joe Dear, chief investment officer at the California Public Employees' Retirement System.
Still, each organization is wrestling with major long-term deficits, known officially as unfunded liabilities, that will strain state and local government budgets over the next several decades.
While both funds have plenty of cash to pay claims for the foreseeable future, CalPERS is $100 billion short over the long term and CalSTRS's deficit is $70 billion."
And
"Lets start by assuming you left the Earth on Dec. 31, 2007, returned June 3, 2013, and had no news in the interim five-plus years.
When you left, the Dow Jones Industrial Average stood at 13,264. On your return it was 15,252, up 15 percent. Dividends provided an additional 2 percent each year. Fixed-income investments did even better because interest rates declined while you were away, with AA corporate bonds producing returns bettering 8 percent per annum.
From your perspective, it looks as if investments did just fine during your trip. And for long-term investors, you would be right. For example, the assets reported by the largest U.S. public pension fund, the California Public Employees Retirement System, are greater today than in 2007. So to whom is Sacramento Countys executive referring?
Hes referring to short-term investors who were forced to sell at the wrong time. Handed a newspaper from 2009, you learn that the country suffered a recession while you were away and that at one point the stock market dropped below 7,000. When that happened, short-term or leveraged investors who had borrowed money to buy stocks suffered investment losses when they were forced to sell equities at low prices.
Long-Term Investors
That category of investor doesnt include public pension funds. They dont have short-term liabilities and arent forced to sell at the wrong time. Instead, they are invested for the very long term -- decades -- and are run by professional investors with the expertise to take advantage of market volatility. They are more like Warren Buffetts Berkshire Hathaway Inc., another long-term investor that isnt forced to sell when prices decline and has the resources to take advantage when prices fall."
But
..."public pension liabilities continue to grow faster than assets, Calpers recently announced a 50 percent increase in pension costs for governments, starting in 2015.
Looks to me like California is addressing a future-----future problem - good on them. If only the US House of Representatives could look beyond the next election, but alas...
.
tax cigarettes another $1.00 per pack.. supposedly to get smokers to stop smoking..and then they want ya to amoke some pot.
Pigovian taxes. Gotta love 'em.
My psychic sense is detecting trucks driving in the dark of night coming from North Carolina, loaded with cigarettes to be sold out of the backs of those trucks.
Seizing Homes to Solve the Mortgage Meltdown?
September 26, 2013 By Arnold Ahlert
Once again, California is burnishing its reputation as the nations premiere location for oppressive government. In a 4-3 vote on September 11, the Richmond City Council approved a measure whereby the city would use the government power of eminent domain to seize hundreds of underwater mortgages. After seizing the mortgages, the city would offer the banks what it considers a fair market value for them. In turn, homeowners would be granted a new loan with lower monthly payments aimed at keeping those owners in their houses. Lenders have filed lawsuits to keep the plan from proceeding.
The Council set up a Joint Powers Authority aimed at bringing additional cities into the program, but two that had expressed interest, San Bernadino, CA and North Las Vegas, NV, backed off when they encountered stiff opposition from mortgage lenders and realtors. The first lawsuit against the plan was filed by Wells Fargo, acting as the trustee in the litigation for dozens of investment entities. That case was dismissed by US District Judge Charles Breyer on September 16. In his ruling, Breyer explained the case was about future events that may never occur, because the City Council had yet to officially enact their plan. If they do, the suit, along with others, will undoubtedly be re-filed.
...
Like the taxpayer bailout of Fannie and Freddie, the attempt to implement eminent domain in Richmond, CA is another testament to the dubious machinations of government officials more than willing to kick the rule of law to the curb if it interferes with their aspirations, and those of their well-connected friends. Even now, Richmond is attempting to partner with other cities that are also exploring the idea of seizing that which does not belong to them, in a manner that bears a striking similarity to the practices of a Third World totalitarian autocracy.
One of the primary reasons America has prospered while much of the Southern Hemisphere has struggleddespite being settled by the same groups of peopleis due to the reverence for private property this country has enjoyed for more than two centuries. If that right is threatened, America will indeed be fundamentally transformed. Fatally and irreparable transformed.
Seizing Homes to Solve the Mortgage Meltdown? | FrontPage Magazine
Seizing Homes to Solve the Mortgage Meltdown?
September 26, 2013 By Arnold Ahlert
Once again, California is burnishing its reputation as the nations premiere location for oppressive government. In a 4-3 vote on September 11, the Richmond City Council approved a measure whereby the city would use the government power of eminent domain to seize hundreds of underwater mortgages. After seizing the mortgages, the city would offer the banks what it considers a fair market value for them. In turn, homeowners would be granted a new loan with lower monthly payments aimed at keeping those owners in their houses. Lenders have filed lawsuits to keep the plan from proceeding.
The Council set up a Joint Powers Authority aimed at bringing additional cities into the program, but two that had expressed interest, San Bernadino, CA and North Las Vegas, NV, backed off when they encountered stiff opposition from mortgage lenders and realtors. The first lawsuit against the plan was filed by Wells Fargo, acting as the trustee in the litigation for dozens of investment entities. That case was dismissed by US District Judge Charles Breyer on September 16. In his ruling, Breyer explained the case was about future events that may never occur, because the City Council had yet to officially enact their plan. If they do, the suit, along with others, will undoubtedly be re-filed.
...
Like the taxpayer bailout of Fannie and Freddie, the attempt to implement eminent domain in Richmond, CA is another testament to the dubious machinations of government officials more than willing to kick the rule of law to the curb if it interferes with their aspirations, and those of their well-connected friends. Even now, Richmond is attempting to partner with other cities that are also exploring the idea of seizing that which does not belong to them, in a manner that bears a striking similarity to the practices of a Third World totalitarian autocracy.
One of the primary reasons America has prospered while much of the Southern Hemisphere has struggleddespite being settled by the same groups of peopleis due to the reverence for private property this country has enjoyed for more than two centuries. If that right is threatened, America will indeed be fundamentally transformed. Fatally and irreparable transformed.
Seizing Homes to Solve the Mortgage Meltdown? | FrontPage Magazine
So the banks were offered fair value. What's wrong with using eminent domain? Wealthy people use it all the time to get ahead. Bush, Texas, baseball stadium ring a bell? It made people rich but didn't serve the public interest like the city of Richmonds action. Why do you average income repubs worry about the rich? They wouldn't urinate on you but will say thanks anyway for worshipping us you fools.
Seizing Homes to Solve the Mortgage Meltdown?
September 26, 2013 By Arnold Ahlert
Once again, California is burnishing its reputation as the nations premiere location for oppressive government. In a 4-3 vote on September 11, the Richmond City Council approved a measure whereby the city would use the government power of eminent domain to seize hundreds of underwater mortgages. After seizing the mortgages, the city would offer the banks what it considers a fair market value for them. In turn, homeowners would be granted a new loan with lower monthly payments aimed at keeping those owners in their houses. Lenders have filed lawsuits to keep the plan from proceeding.
The Council set up a Joint Powers Authority aimed at bringing additional cities into the program, but two that had expressed interest, San Bernadino, CA and North Las Vegas, NV, backed off when they encountered stiff opposition from mortgage lenders and realtors. The first lawsuit against the plan was filed by Wells Fargo, acting as the trustee in the litigation for dozens of investment entities. That case was dismissed by US District Judge Charles Breyer on September 16. In his ruling, Breyer explained the case was about future events that may never occur, because the City Council had yet to officially enact their plan. If they do, the suit, along with others, will undoubtedly be re-filed.
...
Like the taxpayer bailout of Fannie and Freddie, the attempt to implement eminent domain in Richmond, CA is another testament to the dubious machinations of government officials more than willing to kick the rule of law to the curb if it interferes with their aspirations, and those of their well-connected friends. Even now, Richmond is attempting to partner with other cities that are also exploring the idea of seizing that which does not belong to them, in a manner that bears a striking similarity to the practices of a Third World totalitarian autocracy.
One of the primary reasons America has prospered while much of the Southern Hemisphere has struggleddespite being settled by the same groups of peopleis due to the reverence for private property this country has enjoyed for more than two centuries. If that right is threatened, America will indeed be fundamentally transformed. Fatally and irreparable transformed.
Seizing Homes to Solve the Mortgage Meltdown? | FrontPage Magazine
So the banks were offered fair value. What's wrong with using eminent domain? Wealthy people use it all the time to get ahead. Bush, Texas, baseball stadium ring a bell? It made people rich but didn't serve the public interest like the city of Richmonds action. Why do you average income repubs worry about the rich? They wouldn't urinate on you but will say thanks anyway for worshipping us you fools.
tax cigarettes another $1.00 per pack.. supposedly to get smokers to stop smoking..
Pigovian taxes. Gotta love 'em.
My psychic sense is detecting trucks driving in the dark of night coming from North Carolina, loaded with cigarettes to be sold out of the backs of those trucks.
Higher taxes do not stop smokers from smoking. It does, however, stop many young kids from starting to smoke in the first place. I first started smoking in high school when cigarettes were $.75 per pack. The minimum wage was $3.10 per hour. Today, the minimum wage is around $7.25 per hour, but a pack of smokes will run you from $5.00 to $10.00 depending where you live. When I started smoking, I could buy four packs of smokes on one hour's pay. Today, a kid working a minimum wage job will have to spend almost a full hour's pay and maybe as much as 90 minutes of pay. The difference is huge, and it makes a big difference when kids decide to start smoking.
People who are currently smokers will quit on their own if they really want to. Raising the price does not really have much of an effect on those who already smoke. I should know, because I smoked for 30 years before quitting. My kids do not smoke, and even if they thought about trying it, it's just not worth spending $5.00 or $6.00 per day for them. They have better things to do with their money. Now if cigarettes were still only $1.50 or even $2.00, a lot more kids would probably start. Keeping kids from starting is the key, because once a person starts and becomes addicted, quitting is not easy.
Seizing Homes to Solve the Mortgage Meltdown?
September 26, 2013 By Arnold Ahlert
Once again, California is burnishing its reputation as the nation’s premiere location for oppressive government. In a 4-3 vote on September 11, the Richmond City Council approved a measure whereby the city would use the government power of eminent domain to seize hundreds of “underwater” mortgages. After seizing the mortgages, the city would offer the banks what it considers a fair market value for them. In turn, homeowners would be granted a new loan with lower monthly payments aimed at keeping those owners in their houses. Lenders have filed lawsuits to keep the plan from proceeding.
The Council set up a Joint Powers Authority aimed at bringing additional cities into the program, but two that had expressed interest, San Bernadino, CA and North Las Vegas, NV, backed off when they encountered stiff opposition from mortgage lenders and realtors. The first lawsuit against the plan was filed by Wells Fargo, acting as the trustee in the litigation for dozens of investment entities. That case was dismissed by US District Judge Charles Breyer on September 16. In his ruling, Breyer explained the case was about ”future events that may never occur,” because the City Council had yet to officially enact their plan. If they do, the suit, along with others, will undoubtedly be re-filed.
...
Like the taxpayer bailout of Fannie and Freddie, the attempt to implement eminent domain in Richmond, CA is another testament to the dubious machinations of government officials more than willing to kick the rule of law to the curb if it interferes with their aspirations, and those of their well-connected friends. Even now, Richmond is attempting to partner with other cities that are also exploring the idea of seizing that which does not belong to them, in a manner that bears a striking similarity to the practices of a Third World totalitarian autocracy.
One of the primary reasons America has prospered while much of the Southern Hemisphere has struggled–despite being settled by the same groups of people–is due to the reverence for private property this country has enjoyed for more than two centuries. If that right is threatened, America will indeed be “fundamentally transformed.” Fatally and irreparable transformed.
Seizing Homes to Solve the Mortgage Meltdown? | FrontPage Magazine
So the banks were offered fair value. What's wrong with using eminent domain? Wealthy people use it all the time to get ahead. Bush, Texas, baseball stadium ring a bell? It made people rich but didn't serve the public interest like the city of Richmonds action. Why do you average income repubs worry about the rich? They wouldn't urinate on you but will say thanks anyway for worshipping us you fools.
Go to the url I believe they have an email for the author...
Wealthy gubment use eminent domain it all the time...
If your talking to me I'm way past average income and not repub, but you might want to check out a third world socialist country it might suit you...
Seizing Homes to Solve the Mortgage Meltdown?
September 26, 2013 By Arnold Ahlert
Once again, California is burnishing its reputation as the nations premiere location for oppressive government. In a 4-3 vote on September 11, the Richmond City Council approved a measure whereby the city would use the government power of eminent domain to seize hundreds of underwater mortgages. After seizing the mortgages, the city would offer the banks what it considers a fair market value for them. In turn, homeowners would be granted a new loan with lower monthly payments aimed at keeping those owners in their houses. Lenders have filed lawsuits to keep the plan from proceeding.
Pigovian taxes. Gotta love 'em.
My psychic sense is detecting trucks driving in the dark of night coming from North Carolina, loaded with cigarettes to be sold out of the backs of those trucks.
Higher taxes do not stop smokers from smoking. It does, however, stop many young kids from starting to smoke in the first place. I first started smoking in high school when cigarettes were $.75 per pack. The minimum wage was $3.10 per hour. Today, the minimum wage is around $7.25 per hour, but a pack of smokes will run you from $5.00 to $10.00 depending where you live. When I started smoking, I could buy four packs of smokes on one hour's pay. Today, a kid working a minimum wage job will have to spend almost a full hour's pay and maybe as much as 90 minutes of pay. The difference is huge, and it makes a big difference when kids decide to start smoking.
People who are currently smokers will quit on their own if they really want to. Raising the price does not really have much of an effect on those who already smoke. I should know, because I smoked for 30 years before quitting. My kids do not smoke, and even if they thought about trying it, it's just not worth spending $5.00 or $6.00 per day for them. They have better things to do with their money. Now if cigarettes were still only $1.50 or even $2.00, a lot more kids would probably start. Keeping kids from starting is the key, because once a person starts and becomes addicted, quitting is not easy.
I quit a pack a day habit when cigarettes hit $6.00 AND shortly after California instituted the ban on smoking in public places. It just got to be too expensive and too much of a hassle and goddamn I'm glad I quit. What a fucking useless, senseless habit. But I would have to say price definitely played a part in my decision to quit for good.
