ANSWER is suppose to be an anti-war, anti-racism, anti-terrorist, anti-imperialist organization however, they have been accused of serious anti-Semitism in the past, with some serious Jew bashing, chants of support for Hezbolla and Nazi flag waving at previous demonstrations. And they seem to be a supporter of terrorist groups such as Hamas.
If they were a true anti-war organization, then why are they not protesting against BOTH Israel and Hamas from sending rockets on a daily basis across the border into Israel killing innocent civilians. But instead, they choose to only protest Israel. This makes them guilty of anti-Semitism.
This week, ANSWER organized over 50 protests in the United States alone, which I blogged about a few days ago. Just take a look at how “peaceful” and “modest” many were at these protests.
But at one on Friday in Washington , with only about 400 people showing up of a city that has a population of nearly 600,000 (0.06% of the population), in front of the Israeli Embassy, Brian Becker made a few statements about the United States.
These crimes could not be committed [against Gaza by Israel] and would not be committed without the explicit consent and support and financing provided by the Bush Administration. And so in that sense we are here to say, that this is a US backed Israeli atrocity and justice demands that the United States Government cut all aid to Israel today, otherwise and because of it the US is guilty of war crimes too.
Interesting how he fails to mention that Bush just gave $85 million over to the UN for Gaza and the West Bank on December 30th, the most anyone in the world has given since the bombing.
Brazil, home of the “Christ the Redeemer” statue in Rio de Janeiro atop Corcovado Mountain while also home to the Brazil Carnival bringing opposite ends of the spectrum together in one city. And also in Rio de Janeiro there are are haves and have nots, with basically only two social classes, and no middle class. The president of Brazil seems to have the answer, in his mind, to the world’s economic problems via “redistributing income” thus “reducing social inequality”. Or is he giving a smoke and mirrors story?
Luiz Inacio Lula Da Silva says “More government is the solution, not the problem” according to Newsweek article.
As I told the U.N. General Assembly in September, now is the time for politics, for governments to use public control and oversight to halt the economic anarchy. […]
The abuses and errors coming to light daily are all evidence that our existing system of international economic governance has broken down. To develop a better one, the world’s major developing countries should be called on to join the debate. We have plenty to contribute. Take Brazil. We are ready to do our part, and our economy is better prepared than most to confront the crisis. We have said no to macroeconomic adventurism. Inflation is under control and we are growing steadily. We have plenty of foreign reserves and owe nothing to the International Monetary Fund. […]
Brazil is also better prepared to deal with the social and economic dislocation that may ensue. Consider: since I took office in 2003, more than 10 million Brazilians have joined the workforce. Some 20 million have risen out of absolute poverty. […] Above all, we are redistributing income and reducing social inequality.
Silva also fails to mention that two of the largest banks in Brazil, announced a merger in November creating a bank with combined assets of 575 billion reais ($263 billion). Officials have also moved to shore up the banking system. The government has reserved the right to take stakes in struggling banks, via the two big state-owned ones.
Silver seems to have forgotten that on Oct 29 the US Federal Reserve announced a deal with Brazil, Singapore, South Korea and Mexico under which it will provide up to $30 billion to each of them.
In October, there was a sell-off of Brazilian shares and the currency as foreign investors rushed to cover losses elsewhere. The sell-off triggered unexpected losses on foreign-exchange derivatives that were meant to limit the exposure of Brazilian companies to currency moves but have exacerbated it instead. The Brazilian press estimated that some 200 companies hold such contracts.
External funding has dried up. Figures from the central bank show that credit lines to finance trade, normally considered low-risk, are running at about half the level of mid-September.
Consumer credit is becoming scarcer as banks anticipate a rise in bad loans. The monthly payments demand for everything is rising.
At the end of October, Paulo Bernardo, the planning minister, confirmed that the government had reduced its target for the primary fiscal surplus (the difference between revenue and spending before debt payments) for 2009 from 4.3% to 3.8% of GDP. This plan depends on private investors being able to raise credit.
In the free-trade zone around Manaus, in the Amazon, a dozen companies have told their staff to take unpaid leave. Jobless claims rose unexpectedly in November, rising from 7.5% to 7.6%, must lower than a Nov 2007 rate of 8.2%.
In December, output, new orders, employment and purchases all contracted at series-record rates as confidence and demand fell sharply. Inflation rose. The PMI dropped to a new low of 40.0 in December with the PMI registering below the no-change mark of 50.0 for three consecutive months.
In late December, 2008 that new measures to help Brazil counter the effects of the economic crisis will be announced by Jan 20. He said the country is “strong economically” but will act immediately to keep the “perverse effects” of the crisis from affecting the nation. There were no details during his past weekly radio address, with him only saying that the government will start 2009 working hard to boost the economy.
RANT ON
So if your country is all hunky-dorey and is immune from the economic problems that everyone else in the world is suffering, why is there a plan to boost the economy? I mean seriously. Previously $50 bucks a month in welfare makes the difference between poverty and middle class in Brazil? Sounds like to me, the “perverse effects” are already happening, were happening before the market dropped out in October and Silva’s blowing smoke to cover his country’s problems. The president of Brazil needs to keep his Socialist cover story with lies and his Socialist ideas within Brazil.
Before you start your tin foil hat conspiracy finger pointing, the one question that should be on your mind is; How did we get only two states away from rewriting the Constitution with no one knowing about it until now?
A public policy organization has issued an urgent alert stating affirmative votes are needed from only two more states before a Constitutional Convention could be assembled in which “today’s corrupt politicians and judges” could formally change the U.S. Constitution’s “’problematic’ provisions to reflect the philosophical and social mores of our contemporary society.”
“Don’t for one second doubt that delegates to a Con Con wouldn’t revise the First Amendment into a government-controlled privilege, replace the 2nd Amendment with a ‘collective’ right to self-defense, and abolish the 4th, 5th and 10th Amendments, and the rest of the Bill of Rights,” said the warning from the American Policy Institute.
“Additionally could include the non-existent separation of church and state, the ‘right’ to abortion and euthanasia, and much, much more,’ the group said.
The warning comes at a time when Barack Obama, who is to be voted the next president by the Electoral College Monday, has expressed his belief the U.S. Constitution needs to be interpreted through the lends of current events.
“The U.S. Constitution places no restriction on the purposes for which the state can call for a convention,” the alert said. “If Ohio votes to call a Con Con, for whatever purpose, the United States will be only one state away from total destruction. And it’s a safe bet that those who hate this nation, and all She stands for, are waiting to pounce upon this opportunity to re-write our Construction.”
[…]
Further, WND also reported Obama believes the Constitution is flawed, because it fails to address wealth redistribution, and he says the Supreme Court should have intervened years ago to accomplish that.
Obama told Chicago's public station WBEZ-FM that "redistributive change" is needed, pointing to what he regarded as a failure of the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren in its rulings on civil rights issues in the 1960s.
The Warren court, he said, failed to "break free from the essential constraints" in the U.S. Constitution and launch a major redistribution of wealth. But Obama, then an Illinois state lawmaker, said the legislative branch of government, rather than the courts, probably was the ideal avenue for accomplishing that goal.
In the 2001 interview, Obama said:
If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK
But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.
And that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.
2nd Amendment: Right to bear arms. 4th Amendment: Protection against unreasonable search and seizure. 5th Amendment: Protection of due process, incriminating one’s self and eminent domain without “just compensation”. 10th Amendment: Protection of State’s Rights including sovereignty, freedom and independence.
And one wonders why there is a new government program to have our U.S. Army deployed in the United States……… If you have no idea what I’m talking about, Army Brigade homeland tours started October 1, 2008 in the United States.
Do you want to call only being two states away from changing the Constitution a "tin foil hat” conspiracy theory with an upcoming president that wants the Constitution changed, combined with Army Homeland Tours? Change is coming……
Horowitz published an article today titled “Obama Derangement Syndrome” with a by-line of “Shut up about the birth certificate.” [Also found on his blog.]
“What difference does it make to the future of this country whether Obama was born on U.S. soil? Advocates of this destructive campaign will argue that the constitutional principle regarding the qualifications for president trumps all others. But how viable will out Constitution be if five Supreme Court justices should decide to void 64 million ballots?”
Well Mr. Horowitz, this is what I have to say to you. First on the point of the Supreme Court. It would not be the Supreme Court that would void 64 million ballots, it would be the fact that Obama can or can not prove via a “Certificate of Live Birth” vs a “Certification of Live Birth”, which are two totally different documents in Hawaii that he is a natural born citizen of the United States. Yes, yes, go ahead and quote “Fact Check”, but also remember that previously “Fact Check” had posted that Obama was a British Citizen….. I’ll be more than happy to pull up a cap of the page when it stated that.
Secondly, as to constitutional principle, lets take a look at the First Amendment, which allows you the right to freedom of speech and freedom of press to show your stupidity and Socialism. If you don’t want to follow the Constitution regarding the next President of the United States, this also include abolishing the First Amendment soooo… say bye, bye to that right. In other words….
SHUT UP ABOUT THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE HOROWITZ. And if you want to pick and choose which Constitutional rights and laws you want to follow, why don’t you EXERCISE YOUR FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT?
Its not sore “loserism”, because I neither voted Republican nor Democrat. In fact, I hated them both equally. And it’s not “radical” to want to follow the Constitution of the United States. Anyone who does not support the Constitution is un-American, is that what you are trying to say about yourself?
Since when is protecting the Constitution radical, unless your a Socialist. Oh wait.. you were once a supporter of Marxism as well as a member of the New Left in the 1960s, and are the son of two life-long members of the Communist Party.. what was I thinking….
Oh and yes, you once stated in an interview that, “I grew up in a community that was part of a vast international conspiracy, just as the anti-Communists said it was. It was orchestrated from Moscow, funded by the Kremlin and it had treason in its heart.” --- Ummm.. okay.. who’s wearing a tin foil hat now?
And let’s not forget about your friend Huey P. Newton of the Blank Panthers to whom you provided legal and financial assistance to.
The fact is that according to you, the birth certificate is a factual question, not a constitutional question. Well, sweetie, lemme inform you of something. If the birth certificate is void, null, bogus (choose your word here), and Obama can not produce a valid, certified (choose your word here) birth certificate, then it does become a Constitutional issue.
And the last time I checked, the Supreme Court, by history, has interpreted the Constitution of the United States, and interpreted Federal laws, as does ANY judge in the United States and jury in the United States. Interpret the law as you understand it, and then judge on your interpretation and understanding of that law.
It would not undermine the unity of the country, it would show serious lapses in how one can legally become President of the United States. There are NO checks and balances for this process.
Your claim to be a conservative, yet you do not wish to uphold the Constitution is an embarrassment to all conservatives.
Here’s the bottom line:
■ The point about Obama and his birth certificate is the fact that he has spent nearly $800,000 or $80,000 (I’ve seen both) on lawyers to NOT show the document.
■ Obama claims, in one of his books, Dreams I believe, that he found his original birth certificate in a book that belonged to his mother after her death. It to stand to reason that he would still be in possession of it, since he was considering running for office when she died.
■ The fact that his Grandmother in Kenya stated she was present at his birth in Kenya.
■ The facts that his sister stated he was born at two different hospitals in Hawaii.
■ The fact that you don’t have to be born in Hawaii, or even the US to have a “Certification of Live Birth” from Hawaii, but you DO have to be born in Hawaii to have a “Certificate of Live Birth”. The two documents are totally different.
■ The fact that the man simply won’t show the document is the bottom line. What is the problem with showing the document if you have nothing to hide? Why fight showing it to end the debate and earn trust in those who don’t believe him? What is there too loose, other than being shown as a fraud and loosing the eligibility as the next President of the United States? Oh wait…..
■ It is not those who want to see the birth certificate that are keeping this alive. It is Obama himself by not doing a simple task that everyone else in the United States has to do to prove citizenship.
And oh yea, I’ve been compared to Michael Savage (although I originally had no idea who the guy was, and as of this moment, I’ve never listened to him) and told I make Rush Limbaugh look like a Democrat (whom I hated very much in the early 90s and haven’t listened to him since). And no, I have no problem with unseating ANY PERSON, who has used bogus documents, no matter what position they held, to fraudulently obtain a position. If that is radical and un-American, I guess it’s time for me to find a new country to live in.
Oh an you know I had to post the cartoon on the right, since Horowitz just LOVES it. And it’s also protected by the First Amendment.
Take Back the Land is an organization that moves people into foreclosed homes with the belief that “housing is a human right, and, therefore, our right to housing supersedes others right to profit. Consequently, Take Back the Land is matching homeless families with vacant housing units and moving those families into the units”.
They call themselves a “grassroots organization” advocating their mission that they have a right to the land in their community and “to use public space for the public good – specifically, to house, feed and provide community space for the poor, particularly in low income black communities. As such, we are Taking Back the Land and empowering the black community, not the politicians, to determine how to use land for the benefit of the community.”
Their objectives are to first “feed and house people”, second to “assert our right to control the land in our community”, and third “build a new society”.
And how they are trying to obtain these objectives, is by breaking into empty foreclosed homes, and helping the homeless live in these homes, illegally. On woman found herself in one of these homes thanks to the help of Take Back the Land, and two weeks later found the locks changed on the residence with all her belongings gone. She claims although she is illegally on the property, she is the victim of theft.
UMOJA VILLAGE SHANTYTOWN
Umoja means “unity” in Kiswahili. Umoja Village was originally a village in Kenya. In 1990, 15 women established the village in Kenya who had fled their abusive husbands to set up their own women-only community after fleeing their homes. To make ends meet, they began brewing traditional beer in the bush to sell by the roadside, and making bead necklaces. Over time, more women arrived and the women “liberated” themselves from abuse.
In the United States, back in 2006, when TBTL “liberated” in their words, a vacant lot on the corner of 62nd St. and NW 17th Ave. in the Liberty City section of Miami, Florida, founding the Umoja Village Shantytown asserting the “black community’s right to own land” in its own neighborhood, they erected 21 shanties on public land using wooden pallets and tarps. The location was chosen after the county razed a 62-unit low-income apartment building in 2001 and never replaced it.
TBTL claims what they are doing is legal, due to a 1998 court ruling, known as the Pottinger settlement, in which a federal district court judge said Miami could not criminalize homeless people for conducting “life-sustaining acts” including eating, sleeping, lighting a fire and building temporary structures on public land if local shelters were filled. In that settlement, the city agreed that homeless people could not be arrested if they met three criteria:
1. The individual is homeless; 2. the individual is situated on public land; 3. there are no beds available at homeless shelters in the city; and 4. the individual is engaged in “life sustaining conduct,” such as eating, sleeping, bathing, “responding to calls of nature,” congregating and building “temporary structures” to protect one’s self from the elements.
The Village contained shacks that had the frames built from wooden pallets and covered with blue tarps and cardboard. Residents grew cabbage, collard greens, kale and papaya. There were stacks of firewood and they were digging their own well for water. They even had a small library of donated books. In the “Liberty Cafe” a kitchen the pantry shelves were lined with donated canned goods. Villagers cooked over oil drum grills and washed dishes in buckets of soapy water.
Facilities also included a portable toilet and they even built a community shower which consisted of corrugated plastic walls and terra cotta tiles with a plastic jug atop the makeshift shower.
They also had their own form of local government and decided in weekly meetings how to settle disagreements and distribute resources. The also decided who got to stay, and who would be evicted. They even had their own security.
Each individual residence bore a prominent black leader’s name, voted on by the camp’s residents and posted on hand painted signs: Martin Luther King Jr., Malcom X, Fred Hampton, Marcus Garvey and even Tupac Shakur’s godmother, Asatta, a former Black Panther who fled to Cuba.
From a New York Times article, the conditions are described as follows:
“When an emaciated, gray-haired woman staggered into the ragtag encampment complaining of a toothache the other day, Eugene Simpkins fed her peanut butter sandwiches from the communal kitchen and fetched her aspirin from the makeshift medicine cabinet.
As night fell, the woman slept on a urine-stained couch, while Mr. Simpkins fried batches of cornmeal-dusted fish over a campfire.”
The city commissioner, Michelle Spence-Jones, who is black and whose district encompasses Liberty City, originally tried to shut the settlement down because she considered it a health and safety hazard, with an ordinance to require a permit for gatherings on public land, but after several visits changed her mind. She withdrew the ordinance and promised to arrange for trash pickup at the site three times a week. She would not however, allow the group’s request for a mailbox. “That sends a whole other message,” she stated.
Miami Mayor Manny Diaz said he favored shutting down the camp: “We’ve always had concerns. People seemed to focus on the politics and not on the human life.” Diaz said the city wanted the residents to leave but also wanted to respect their situation and give them a say. “We kept sending county and city service people to get them to leave nicely. We were in a no-win situation. They city was trying to be sensitive,” he said.
The state attorney general’s office came by the site to take pictures. When questioned by Take Back the Land residents, the officials replied, “We don’t have to say what we are doing.”
The Village grew to about 44 – 50 residents, including one couple who was expecting a baby.
On April 23, 2007 Umoja Village had a six-month celebration. On April 26, 2007, on the day the first hexayurts (a type of circular, domed, portable tent actually used by nomadic people of central Asia, similar to a yurt, more “permanent” than the pallet/tarp/cardboard shanties) were scheduled to be built, shortly after midnight,a fire engulfed the entire Village, and it burnt to the ground, with no one being hurt. Although Take Back the Land organizers state the fire started under “mysterious” circumstances however, two reports (here and here) a lone report stated the fire was started by a tipped over candle in the camp.
The next morning the police came and moved everyone off the city’s property. One man refused to leave, chaining himself to a table. “”I ain’t going nowhere,” Wanda Whetstone said as she sat on a log. “I told you, I’ll get arrested. But they ought to be housing us, not jailing us.” Eleven were arrested including Max Rameau, the director for Take Back the Land when he didn’t heed an order to stop erecting a tent on the land. The same day, the City of Miami enclosed the lot in barbed wire.
“They’re using an accident to enforce their action to regain the land, which is what they’ve wanted all along,” said Denise Perry of the activist group Power U. “How safe are people who sleep outside or under the bridges? We can go back and forth on what is safe.”
TAKE BACK THE LAND
Take Back the Land has 10 volunteers, who first gained attention with their Umoja Village. After the Umoja Village burned down in April, 2007, TBTL’s sights changed on how to house the homeless.
In a Oct 27, 2007 post on their blog they claim that Miami-Dade County intentionally leaves units vacant, or tears down public hosing all together “ as a means of fueling the real estate ‘boom.’ When the governments take units of low-income housing off of the market, the value of the remaining privately held units increases, as families scramble to find new living arrangements. This is nothing short of tax financed market manipulation, designed to decrease supply at a time when demand is sky high, resulting in a government sponsored – not a market driven – real estate ‘boom’”
“Take Back the Land, again, asserts the right of the Black community to control land in the Black community. In order to provide housing for people, not for profit, this community control over land must now take the form of direct community control over housing.”
“Housing is not a privilege reserved for the wealthy. Housing is a human right, and we, hereby, assert our humanity.”
Jonathan Baker, lived at the Village. He stated his ex-wife use to refinance houses and had a crack problem. He stated he was use to being financially secure with everything paid for but,
“when it went south real bad, instead of killing her, I just decided to jump on the road and start over somewhere else.”
“I came over here and had the second place built, and I’ve basically been here ever since,” he says.
“You have facilities; you have food. The only thing you have to come up with is job transportation and then sticking to it.”
“Having a place to live, having a place to cook your food, having a community of social people around you – that is not a privilege, that is a right, OK?”
Originally TBTL tried a plan to put homeless people into private housing. The homeless people were suppose to hand a check – for whatever money they could spare – to the property manager. If the property manager cashed the check, Rameau thought it would signal that the people could stay. They tried cashing nine checks with different residents –- but property mangers rejected them. The squatters left. “We were really surprised,” Rameau said. “We took it to mean that they actually started paying attention, not just stealing money.”
On October 22, 2007, TBTL moved its first homeless family into a foreclosed home, illegally. Cassandra Cobbs and Jason Thompson, a couple in their late 20s, and their two small children was this homeless family. This couple wasn’t entire homeless, as they had help and “hated” it.
Cobbs and Thompson had originally been part of the Village after their two-bedroom house in Fort Lauderdale was condemned. They linked up with social service agencies through the Homeless Trust. The agencies placed them in hotels, then in an apartment. They hated both and began to sleep in their white Chevy Astro. Rameau moved them into a vacant foreclosed one-story stucco home in Liberty city, illegally. “We’re not looking for a handout,” Thompson said. “We’re looking for a hand up.”
In February, 2008 they were still living at the same residence. Cassandra worked as a street vendor selling jewelry and incense. In their living room there were two chairs, a moving trunk, and a small TV. Bedsheets covered the windows, and the walls had just been painted saffron. The neighbors initially loaned the family electricity via an extension cord until an anonymous man turned on power at the house.
The day after Rameau moved Cassandra and Jason into their new “home”, he announced he had a new strategy. The plan: Move the homeless into the deserted houses, with or without permission.
The move-ins work like this: Rameau and four other volunteers screen candidates to measure “urgency of need” – and to ensure they aren’t mentally ill or addicted to drugs. Next the group chooses a house. Repair costs, safety, livability, and proximity to Take Back’s headquarters in Liberty City are considered. Volunteers then “visit the location several times in order to gauge if the place is being watched,” Rameau says.
Mamyrah Prosper checks out such a property. Stepping over ankle-high grass, plastic bags and trash the yard of a vacant redbrick house in Miami’s Liberty City, she looks through a gap in a boarded up window. “It looks in good shape,” she says. “I mean, the walls aren’t falling down. This is definitely one of our stronger options.” If the place “checks out”, she and Take Back the Land will break in, change the locks, paint and clean, “innovate” a way to connect water and electricity, and then move a homeless family into the house.
Participants are instructed to enter through the front door and to be honest – even to befriend neighbors and put utilities in their own names. What is not said or told, is how participants are getting through the locked doors on the homes.
MAX RAMEAU
Max Rameau, Haitian-born and Washington D.C. raised, is the director of Take Back the Land and Copwatch. Copwatch is a database of complaints filed against police officers.
Rameau is a stay-at-home father of two, Serge and Akinle. It is unknown what his significant other Bernadette Armand does for a living.
He is Haitian-born and Washington D.C. raised. Previously Rameau held the position as the leadership development coordinator at the Miami Workers Center which includes cases and issues of police brutality, Haitian refugee rights, the war in Iraq, Election Reform Coalition, Fix HOPE VI, and fighting against Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) and expansion of NAFTA.
Most recently Rameau has been offering the homeless a home in Miami, Florida. He helps homeless people illegally move into foreclosed homes. “We’re matching homeless people with people-less homes,” he says with a grin. SO far, he has moved six families into foreclosed homes and has nine on a waiting list.
From Rameau’s Take Back the Land’s blog, “Since October 2007, Take Back the Land has been identifying vacant government owned and foreclosed homes and liberating them by moving homeless people into people-less-homes – without permission from the government or the banks. This is the real bailout.”
Additionally stated on the blog: “Take Back the Land further asserts it is immoral to maintain vacant homes for the purpose of profits in the future, while human beings are forced to live on the streets today. The madness of such a policy is only compounded when one considers the owners of these vacant homes are not other people, but banks, the same banks receiving billions of dollars in bailouts without having to trade in the foreclosed homes for use by some of the people financing the bailouts. Additional government resources, including police and other government agencies, should not be used to evict low income people from homes in order to maintain vacant structures for bailed out banks to profit from some time in the future.”
“We could virtually empty the streets and shelters simply by filling the vacant houses,” Rameau says. “Homes should go to people, not kept empty so banks can cash in.”
Rameau and others formed Take Back the Land. “I think everyone deserves a home,” says Rameau. “Homeless people across the country are squatting in empty homes. The question is: Is this going to be done out of desperation or with direction?”
Rameau is not scared of getting arrested for what he is doing. “There’s a real need here, and there’s a disconnect between the need and the law,” he said. “Being arrested is just one of the potential factors in doing this.”
Most recently on Rameau’s blog, dated Nov. 26, 2008 is stated: “So, as this country celebrates the Pilgrims – who took over land without permission from the owner – we must think about using land to benefit people, not just corporations. We assert that our right to housing supersedes the corporate right to profit.”
In an article written for UHURU News, Rameau wrote such statements as “Miami’s government and laws are just tools of white rulers”, “…there are unelected forces with more power than lowly local governments, who make unilateral decisions without public hearing, and those powers have an interest in ensuring the black community cannot exercise self-determination.”
THE CITY
Miami recently passed an ordinance requiring owners of abandoned homes – whether an individual or bank – to register these properties with the city so police can better monitor them. However, the city can not stop squatters from “moving” into these homes.
Miami spokeswoman Kelly Penton said city officials did not know Rameau was moving homeless into empty buildings – but they are also not stopping him. They can’t. “There are no actions on the city’s part to stop this,” she said in an e-mail to NRP. “It is important to note that if people trespass into private property, it is up to the property owner to take action to remove those individuals.”
According to the Miami-Dade County Housing Agency, squatters, if discovered, will be promptly removed from the premises and potentially prosecuted. So far, though, Take Back’s foreclosure squatting clients have avoided detection.
There was a law passed in October giving police and zoning authorities more power to deal with the squatters – but it has yet to go into effect. “We’re putting a priority on it because there are places for criminal activity, for drug dealing and drug use,” Mariano Loret de Mola, Miami city code enforcement director said.
MARIE NADINE PIERRE aka CASSY, aka the “VICTIM”
[NOTE: The following is a combination of three articles. In one article the woman is referred to as Pierre, and the other she is referred to as Cassy, not her real name. Comparing the two articles (here, here and here[Video]), the number of children (4), the number of children sent to her husband (3) leaving one with her, the jobs, dates and house price and location are the same. It is assumed they are the same person. For purposes of continuity, Cassy will be referred to as Pierre.]
”This house is a castle”, says Pierre, a 39-year-old Haitian mother, in November 2008. Pierre had worked as an instructor at Miami Dade College and as a researcher at Florida International University while working for her PhD.
Prior to this, Pierre had a too-good-to-be-true mortgage loan. When the rate on the loan changed, she could no longer afford the payments. The county put a lien on her North Miami home, and she was evicted four years ago. She tried to rent an apartment but was broke and had bad credit. “The shelter system is hell,” she adds. “It isn’t made for human beings.” She said she had been homeless off and on for a year, after losing various jobs and getting evicted from several apartments. “My heart is heavy. I’ve lived in a lot of different shelters, a lot of bad situations,” Pierre said. According to Local 10 WPLG, Pierre has been in and out of shelters, with Pierre stating the shelters “could not accommodate her”, and has been living off and on the streets for four years.
So after losing the home four years ago, with her husband in tow, they could not afford to find another place to live and went in and out of homeless shelters until September, 2008 when Pierre’s husband was deported to the Bahamas, leaving her with the kids. “I don’t mean to cry crocodile tears,” she says. “But we paid our dues.” With no place to stay, she was forced to send three of her children to live with her husband in the Bahamas. This prompted a "nervous breakdown” and a trip to the psychiatric ward. After she recovered, a volunteer referred her to Rameau in October, 2008.
With Rameau’s help in early November, Pierre and her 18-month old daughter “moved” into a ranch style, three bedroom, two-bathroom, sky-blue 1,450-square-foot house on a tree-lined street in Miami’s Buena Vista neighborhood. According to a statement by Local 10 WPLG Rameau broke into the house, changed the locks, and offered Pierre the home.
“I’ve never had a walk-in closet … and all this space.” She takes warm showers, cooks dinner, and watches the news on a TV. But what is not understood, is who is paying for the water, the electricity.
This house was chosen for the woman because Rameau knew the history of the house. A man had bought the home in the city’s predominantly Haitian neighborhood in 2006 for $430,000, which is now worth about $263,000 according to county records, then rented it to Rameau’s friends. Those friends were evicted in October because the homeowner had stopped paying his mortgage and the property went into foreclosure. He believes he is doing the owner a favor my illegally moving in a squatter because, for example, someone stole the air conditioning until from the backyard, and it was only a matter of time before the copper pipes and wiring disappeared. “Within a few months, this place would be stripped and drug dealers would be living here,” he said.
Unfortunately, she is a human being who is breaking the law. She could be charged with trespassing, vandalism or breaking and entering. Rameau assured her he has lawyers who will represent her free.
Two weeks after Pierre moved in, she came “home” to find the locks had been changed. Everything inside – her food, clothes and personal items – was gone. Pierre stated she knows that she is there illegally, but feels that she has been victimized. In the Local 10 WPLG video, a sign can be seen on the front of the house saying “Who stole my baby’s diapers?”
But late last month, with Rameau’s help, she got back inside and has put Christmas decorations on the front door. It is unknown how Rameau “helped” her get back inside.
Back in her “home”, Pierre talks about her new part-time job selling T-shirts saying the past few weeks in her new “home” are the most stability she has had since 2003. Her plan is to get her kids back and pay the mortgage on the house. “I’m not trying to be a freeloader,”she says. “[I’m} In my own home, I’m free. I’m a human being now.” “I just finally feel like I’m home. I am ready to fight these people.”
During an interview with Local 10 WPLG, Pierre stated, “It’s no different in many ways what the banks are doing being bailed out. I want to be bailed out
The home is owned by Aurora Loan Services, and as of December 2nd, the police have not gotten involved as they did not have any orders to evict Pierre. Meanwhile, Pierre has put up Christmas lights along with a sign that states “People live here” and plans on having all four children back together in the “home” by Christmas. “I’m so looking forward to getting my other three children, they gonna love the space and its big, there’s a nice yard ya know, beyond being spacious, they will all each have their own room for the first time.”
MAVRICK SQUATTERS
T-bone is a 48-year-old man who once lived in Umoja Village. He said he borrowed a screwdriver in late October, 2008, unlocked the front door of a foreclosed home across from a graveyard in Brownsville, and temporarily moved in. There’s no power or water, the walls were ripped out, glass bottles lay broken, and plastic toys from the previous residents are about. In the back, a bare single mattress lay on the floor. “Its hard to find work,” he said. “I read the paper. Their ain’t no jobs.”
RANT ON
Well, I fully expect an email or a posting from Max to be honest. And hey, I welcome it! This is the United States and our Constitution allows us the right to free speech and opinion thanks to the Second Amendment. And hey, feel free Max to ridicule my post. I need the hits, thanks.
First, I believe that poverty and homeless knows no ethnic bounds. It happens to all races, all over the world. No one is immune. Its something this country is going to learn about the hard way in the very near future if our economy and “savior” Obama doesn’t do something about it. He made promises during his campaign, does he intend to keep them?
Second, I believe that you can not get what you want, a silver spoon, handed to you without any work. If you want something, you work for it, you don’t think you “deserve it” because your “good enough” for it. There is a time to be part of the “welfare” system, and then there is a time to stand on your own two feet. Handouts, donations and help are NOT suppose to be a permanent way of life.
And the problem with what Max is doing is that the homes are someone else’s property and someone else’s liability. The house is broken into, and squatters live there without the permission of the owner, and without paying a dime to the owner. The legal owner of the home has a Constitutional right to be secure in his property and possessions, whether he is physically on said property or not. Max and his “Take Back the Land” organization are encouraging crime. Let me pose this question to you. If you own a vacation home, or have to leave a home empty while moving, is it right for people to break in, move in and call it their own, without paying the owner a dime? What if you don’t lock your door while you run around the corner to the store, and come back home and find people in your home telling you to get out of THEIR home? A foreclosed home is not the same thing as finding “treasure” by digging through trash during a “dumpster diving” event.
Personally I think moving a homeless person into a foreclosed home is only moving a person from one crisis to another by illegal action. Its not a permanent resolution, but it is a criminal resolution. The residents could be arrested at any time, losing everything they have. What kind of organization encourages the homeless to break the law and face losing everything just for a temporary roof over their head just to prove a point?
So first there was Cassandra Cobbs and Jason Thompson who were given help by the “system” and didn’t like what was given to them, so they decided to live in their van, which makes them voluntarily homeless. They had a home and gave it up because it wasn’t good enough and wanted a “hand up” to something better. Now they have been living in a house, that is not theirs, a house they have not paid for, a house they have not paid property taxes on, a house they live in rent free, illegally for over a year. And that is “good enough” for them. Cobbs and Thompson are criminals.
Then there is Ms. Pierre. Ms. Pierre is also criminal. She and her husband lost their home four years ago, and during that time couldn’t seem to get it together bouncing in and out of homeless shelters and the street. Four years ago, the economy wasn’t really that bad, at least nothing like it is today. And why do I have a feeling that Ms. Pierre wanted to be able to finish her PhD without taking a job since homeless shelters were “able to accommodate” her.
Probably what didn’t help them is that her husband was an illegal immigrant. I’m pretty sure that during those four years, she was eligible for low income housing, food stamps, health care (things we aren’t eligible for), and managed to have at least one more child.
So tell me, who paid for all those things? Welcome to America Ms. Pierre, where ALL single moms have a hard time. Your story is nothing special. And how are YOU a victim when YOU illegally live in a home, and the owner had the legal right to remove your property from his, since you are trespassing and illegally living there? Tell me, who cuts your lawn? Who pays for your water and electric? Who pays for your child care? Who pays for your child’s healthcare? Where do you get your food from? Who pays for your trash removal? And who pays taxes on the property that you illegally live on? You are telling me, that you are able to pay for all of that, without using taxpayers money, without using handouts, by simply selling t-shirts? Yea right.. if you expect people to believe that, I’ve got ocean front property in Arizona to sell, really cheap.
Why is Ms. Pierre’s situation so different and so special from millions of other single mothers of ALL races, who don’t receive child support and have to decide on whether there is going to be food on the table tonight, or if the electric bill is going to be paid for the month? But instead, you choose to illegally “take” that which does not belong to you saying its your right. Why is it right that a person lost their home because they couldn’t pay, and now you have a moral right to live in that same home, illegally, for your own purposes.
And how is it that her husband can afford to take care of three children in the Bahamas, yet he can’t afford to send her money every month so that she could have kept those three children with her?
But Take Back the Land reeks of grass roots communism and socialism. And the problem is, that Max seems to think that everything should be handed to people without working for it because they deserve it as a basic human right. What makes the “black community” more special for handouts and rights than say the Latino community, or the Asian community, or *gasp* the White community? Last time I checked, poverty and homelessness knew no ethnic bounds and no group of people, according to me, should get special treatment over other people based simply on their ethnicity. Because if you do, that RAAACCCCIIIIIISSSSSSSTTTTTTTTT.
Isn’t socialism about all for one and one for all and sharing everything? Or is a Democratic society about freedom, and working for what you have? Its one’s own personal responsibility for what they do have and what they don’t have. And unfortunately with our economy, a rise in unemployment, a rise in foreclosure, and a rise in homeless, over the next 2-3 years, its going to get worse, so get use to it. It could happen to everyone.
SOURCES:
“Miami activist moves people into foreclosed houses”, AP via NPR, 01DEC08
Obama announced this morning that Hillary Clinton would be the next Secretary of State.
“I assembled this team because I am a strong believer in strong personalities and strong opinions,” he said. “I think that’s how the best decisions are made.”
The only thing Obama forgot to say is that he also believes in violating the United States Constitution. Hillary Clinton is NOT eligible for the position of Secretary of State via the Constitution.
I ask you how can a man ethically take the oath for Presidency which states: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”, when he isn’t even following or respecting Constitutional Law?
The final step for Obama to truly break this law is for confirmation by the Senate for Clinton, along with Holder and Napolitano, to these positions. I ask you, is this still a Democratic sovereign nation, if 1. our next president willfully and voluntarily breaks Constitutional Law, and 2. our own Congress willfully and voluntarily breaks Constitutional Law?
I urge everyone to email, call or write their Senator and demand that our Constitution be followed.
And, this is the end of this blog. No one cares how many Constitutional Laws that Obama is trying to break. It does not matter that he plans on violating the 13th Amendment with his required America Serves program. It does not matter that Obama refuses to end the debate over whether he is a natural born US citizen or not, even if it is a crazy conspiracy theme. He’d rather deal with it for the next 4 years instead of ending the accusations now. Those who voted for Obama, you wanted “change” you got it. The Constitution is dying. Say good bye to all your rights. But all the US citizens seem to care about is who wins “Dancing with the Stars” or who wins “American Idol” or what happens next week on “Desperate Housewives.”
A year from now, you will have no one to blame but yourselves for the destruction of the Constitution and the true beginning of Socialism.
And I am wasting my time trying to blog the truth.
Millions of U.S. jobs may head overseas if a labor bill backed by President-elect Barack Obama passes, the head of the Consumer Electronics Association said.
The Employee Free Choice Act, also known as the card-check law,lets employees form unions when a majority of workers sign cards, rather than only after employees vote in secret. Obama, who will be inaugurated on Jan. 20, co-sponsored the legislation as a U.S. senator from Illinois.
Employers may send jobs offshore to avoid dealing with interference from unions, Gary Shapiro, chief executive officer of the Arlington, Virginia-based association, said yesterday in an interview. The measure is the biggest concern for the group, which represents more than 2,000 electronics companies, he said.
"A lot of our manufacturers have told us they'll ship jobs overseas," Shapiro said. "In the tech industry, to be innovative and to be able to compete," employers have to be able to freely hire and fire workers.
This card check law would be partially damaging to Louisville where the manufacturing base is still a dominant part of the economy.
As far as Kentucky is concerned, Toyota would be a top-of-the-agenda target and thus would probably pick up its operations and move them to Canada or Mexico.
As a former chairman, and still a member of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce labor policy committee, I can assure you that this is the most potentially damaging piece of proposed union legislation to both the freedom of the individual employee and the health of U.S. productivity to come along in memory.
And how does this possibly affect the transportation industry? From Logistics Management:
"I expect HOS to be revised and perhaps even codified and I would not be surprised to see driving hours reduced to 10 based on a 12 hour work day. (Which means less miles, thus less money. And goods to be delivered at a slower rate.) You should expect to see a mandatory fuel surcharge program and stronger enforcement of the EPA Model Anti-Idling law; and many (not just LTL) trucking companies could become unionized. Lastly, all efforts to improve productivity through Size and Weight, will quietly be put to sleep."
As a little overview of the EFCA, in its current form, once the legislation passes, unions will be able to penetrate the workforce by merely obtaining a simple majority of employee signatures on authorization cards - known as a "card check" process - which substitutes a signature for a secret ballot vote.
One a majority of signed "authorization" cards are obtained and presented to the employer, the union will be entitled to legal recognition as the employees' exclusive bargaining representative. This "system" however, allows for pressuring employees and peers to sign the cards and everyone will know who supported a union and who didn't. And since unions can press employees for their signatures before and after work, during their breaks, at local bars, churches and even at their homes and this could be a problem for those who do not wish to participate.
Also under the proposed legislation, there is a section entitled "Facilitating Initial Collective Bargaining Agreement." Under this section, collective bargaining agreement must begin within 1-0 days and must be reached within 90 days after a demand is made by the union to commence negotiations following a successful card-count. If an agreement is not reached, the parties must submit the negotiation process to mediation.
If no agreement is reached with negotiation after 30 days, then it is sent to a federal arbitration panel. That arbitration panel settles the negotiations by determining the terms of a binding two year agreement, setting wages, benefits, hours, work-rules and all the other terms of employment. When it reaches this level, employees do NOT have a say or a vote on pay, benefits or workplace conditions.
And then there are the Union dues to be paid every week.
First, this means that there will be a major waiting period before the union benefits "happen". It will not happen overnight. And secondly, do you really think that employers who are not "union friendly" will employee those who want the union? No, they will choose for cheaper labor (i.e. illegal) or choose to outsource their work overseas.
And if you say that legitimate large employers don't hire illegal immigrants, well, let me tell you of something that happened to me within the past few days. I was at a local McDonalds, as I have a horrible horrible liking for their vanilla shakes, and overheard two employees talking about one of themselves. One employee was professing that he did not have a social security card, or a social security number, yet this employee was obviously over the age of 18. He then proceeded to tell the other employee how he had gotten a fake social security card. While I stood there listening to their conversation, the manager realized that I was listening and told the two to end their conversation looking at me. Now McDonald's might not be the dream job that everyone thinks of, but its a job, and in this economy where jobs are thin, a job that a legal American might need, it was given to an illegal immigrant by a Fortune 500 company. And this is NOT a lone observation or overheard conversation where I live. And no, this is not going to turn into an immigration post.
Now supposedly Obama supports employer use of the federal E-Verify program and increasing the number of visas allowed (why are we increasing visas when we don't have enough jobs to go around now?), but shares labor concerns that H-1B workers are sometimes used to substitute for American workers and would likely put more restrictions on how employers can use the visas.
The Patriot Employer Act of 2007 is suppose to help stop companies sending jobs overseas by giving tax breaks to companies that keep jobs in the United States, maintaining their corporate headquarters here, pay a certain level of wages, stay neutral during organizing drives, pay at least 60 percent of the healthcare premiums of employees, prepare workers for retirement and support workers who serve in the military. There's only one problem with that. Where are the jobs? If there are no jobs, then there are no employees.
And Obama plans on taxing employers for the new national healthcare program. Under Obama's proposal, employers that don't provide a "meaningful" contribution to their workers health coverage will have to pay the government a percentage of their payroll.
Obama also co-sponsored an act that eliminates caps on compensatory and punitive damaged awarded in discrimination cases. This act would parallel the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, where every time an employee receives a paycheck or pension payment, they can sue for pay discrimination. Obama is a strong supporter of this act.
Obama also plans on increasing the minimum wage to $9.50 per hour and also require employers with at least 15 employees to provide seven paid sick days per year. (Obama co-sponsored the sick days bill.)
So do you REALLY THINK that employers are going to keep jobs in the United States with all these new rules and expenses? Seriously.... Now I am not saying that people are not entitled to these rights however, do you think every company and business in the United States has the money to back all of this up, especially with the significant drop in business and sluggish sales?
Now I'm all for workers rights with fair pay for a fair job done. But forced unions are not going to "fix" the rising unemployment level. All they are going to do is raise the unemployment level, driving major corporations to send jobs overseas to lower costs, and lower hassle. The main point of Congress should NOT be to "fix" unions. It should be to stimulate the economy, stimulate jobs, stimulate spending, and help people, not the black hole AIG banks out of trouble.
And the only people it seems that will make any money out of this act, will be labor lawyers and union heads. But I could be wrong. Time will tell, if the act and/or acts pass.....
Oh, and one other thing. Pushing for organized workers and unions for all jobs is a trait of socialism. Don't believe me? Check out the Socialist Party USA's, Socialist Party Handbook on "Working Class Unity".
If you didn't know it, the House Democrats think they are looking out for your best interests regarding your recent 401(k) losses, in a discussion to confiscate them, and then nationalize them. An example of how this would effect our personal 401(k) is at the end of the post under RANT ON. Basically right now, we get a 64% return GUARANTEED on our initial investment. Under the Dem's plan to nationalize our retirement, our return would only be 1%. So who is exactly who looking out for our best interests?
The House Democrats are discussing taking 401(k)s back to the value they were in August, 2008 before the stock market declined and restoring the 401(k) back to its full value. Then they are discussing seizing those funds and putting it into a Social Security fund that will grow by 3% each year with government bonds, which will be adjusted for inflation. The most one would be able to contribute to it each year would be 5%. A company match will no longer happen.
A plan by a professor of economic-policy, Teresa Ghilarducci, states that, all workers would receive a $600 annual inflation-adjusted subsidy from the U.S. government but would be required to invest 5 percent of their pay into a guaranteed retirement account administered by the Social Security Administration. The money in turn would be invested in special government bonds that would pay 3% a year, adjusted for inflation. [Ghilarducci's Testamony to the House [PDF] on October 07, 2008]
"I want to stop the federal subsidy of 401(k)s," Ghilarducci said in an interview. "401(k)s can continue to exist, but they won't have the benefit of the subsidy of the tax break." "I want to spend our nation's dollar for retirement security better. Everybody would now be covered" if the plan were adopted.
John Belluardo, president of Stewardship Financial Services Inc. in Tarrytown, NY has said, "From where I sit that's just crazy." "A lot of people contribute to their 401(k)s because of the match of the employer," he said. "If the tax deferral goes away, the employers have no reason to do the matches, which primarily help people in the lower income brackets," said Belluardo.
Ed Ferrigno, vice president of the Washington office of The Profit Sharing/401(k) Council of America has said, "Some of the tenor [of the hearings last week] that the entire system should be based on the activities of the markets in the last 90 days is not the way to judge the system."
In place of 401(k) plans, she [Ghilarducci] would have workers transfer their dough into the government-created "guaranteed retirement accounts" for every worker. The government would deposit $600 (inflation indexed) every year into the GRAs. Each worker would also have to save 5% of pay into the accounts, to which the government would pay a measly 3% return. Rep. Jim McDermott, a Democrat from Washington and chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee's Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, said that since "the savings rate isn't going up for the investment of $80 billion [in 401(k) tax breaks], we have to start to think about whether or not we want to continue to invest that $80 billion for a policy that's not generating what we now say it should."
Democrats in the U.S. House have been conducting hearings on proposals to confiscate workers' personal retirement accounts - including 401(k)s and IRAs - and convert them to accounts manged by the Social Security Administration.
Triggered by the financial crisis the past two months, the hearings reportedly were meant to stem losses incurred by many workers and retirees whose 401)k) and IRA balances have been shrinking rapidly.
The testimony of Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic policy analysis at the New School of Social Research in New York, in hearings Oct. 7 drew the most attention and criticism. Testifying for the House Committee on Education and Labor, Ghilarducci proposed that the government eliminate tax breaks for 401(k) and similar retirement accounts, such as IRAs, and confiscate workers' retirement plan accounts and convert them to universal Guaranteed Retirement Accounts (GRAs) managed by the Social Security Administration.
This type of plan didn't work so well in Argentina. In Argentina, private pensions are somewhat like 401(k) accounts in the United States. Argentine lawmakers are considering a plan to nationalize about $26 billion in private pension funds.
Argentina announced last month on October 21, in what has been called a "surprise bill", that it was taking over the pension system to protect workers from losses, thus nationalizing the pension system in a way to raise funds to avoid its second default in a decade. Currently Argentina has about $150 billion in debt.
After the release of this announcement, the Merval index (the Argentina version of the NYSE) fell more than 10% the same day and the next day, and by Friday had dropped 28%. The damage was worse in the local debt markets, where trading volume for a a key local bond market was practically zero the next day, Wednesday, compared to a normal day's turnover of about $1 billion.
A few days later, a U.S. judge ordered the freezing of more than $553 million in U.S. investments held by the Argentine pension funds that the government intends to nationalize. The judge ordered the blocking of property in the US "including but not limited to cash, deposits, real property, instruments, securities, security entitlements, security accounts, equity interests, claims, and contractual rights and interest" maintained in the name of the Argentine pension funds.
However, another judge has blocked Argentina from transferring any of the pension fund investment out of the US until he hears the complaints of bondholders. Argentine officials saw this as "an attempt by vulture funds to take possession of these assets without considering whether it belongs to them."
It was announced just today, that the pension nationalization bill has passed in the Argentinian Lower House. The Senate will vote on the bill later this month.
RANT ON
So lets talk about me/us for a minute. We, meaning us.. you know what I mean, place 4% of our income into a 401(k) account which is matched by the company my other half works for. (Yes I have my own, however its rather small, and basically is the same program that my other half has.) This was placed into a 4.8% fixed interest account back in September before all this hoopla. Before that, there was a hit of about 9% since the beginning of the year, which is acceptable considering many lost 40% or more. That is the chance one takes when they invest and unfortunately, this can not be taken as a loss. But moving forward, any money that is placed into this account is not taxed.
In comparison to the Dem's idea, an additional 1% would be taken out of income, and additionally the entire 5% would be taxed and placed into a 3% fixed interest account, giving $600 bucks a year in addition. Also by doing this, this means that if a loan is needed, it can not be done as the government has the money, and can use it as it sees fit via the Social Security Surplus Bill.
So lets look at the first year numbers under this new plan, with an income of say $50K, shall we?
Income: $50,000.00 401(k) at 4%: $2000.00 Tax Liability: $48,000 401(k) Match: 50% Total 401(k) investment: $3000.00 Total Return at 4.8% fixed: $144 Total: $3144.00 which is a 64% return on the initial $2,000 investment. No tax liability on the original $2000.00
Income: $50,000 401(k) at 5%: $2500.00 Tax Liability: $50,000 401(k) Match: 0% Total 401(k) investment: $2500.00 Total return at 3% fixed: $75.00 Total: $2575.00 which is a 3% return on the initial $2,500 investment. Tax Liability on the original $2,500.00 @ 20% = $500
Total Profit? $1,114.00 Return: 64%
And, if needed, one can take out a loan, under certain terms.
Total Profit?
1. 3% on $2,500 = + $75.00 2. 20% Tax on $2,500 = -$500.00 3. $600 "Match" = +$600.00
Total Profit? $25.00 Return: 1%
Nothing has been stated about loans, but do you think it will be allowed?
So using the above example, who makes more money off of this? Is all this worth a 1% return on your retirement? The government does make more money off YOUR investment, a LOT more money, than you would under it being privatized, and you get a measly 1% return..... how generous of them. Or is this an example of "sharing the wealth?"
This also means that all the money that is in the stock market would disappear. What does one think happens when there is a mass sale of stock? First the market drops like a bomb, and then secondly, what bank or investment company has the funds to cash up for those sales. Oh yea, the $700 billion, or rather $1.7 trillion, or rather, whatever number it has grown to today.
Additionally, what would happen if everyone decided to cash out their 401(k)s at one time, thus a "run on 401(k)s"? First one would have to pay a 10% penalty tax for early withdrawal if one is not 59 1/2 years old, thus the government makes money. Secondly, you are taxed just like your income tax as pulling out a 401(k) is seen as income. So thus, the government takes part of your money. Basically it comes out to right around a 25% loss for early withdrawal on the average overall. Then of course, is the scenario above where everyone is selling on the market, companies don't have the funds to back up their stock, and around and around we go on the merry-go-round again. That is, if the Democrats who want your money, don't immediately put restrictions on early withdraws on 401(k)s before this bill ever makes it to the floor. So if you think companies falling, banks falling and unemployment is bad now.... what do you think will happen if the Democrats seize your 401(k)s?
Also in the discussions, there is the elimination of the 401(k) tax break which has been stated to be around $80 billion. This means that any money you place into a retirement account is taxable, where as it is now not taxable. This increases your tax liability and thus your income tax raises. Additionally, this increases the government's income.
And meanwhile, the government can use your money via the Social Security surplus bill for their own purpose via the Social Security Surplus Bill.
If you ever wondered how the government was going to pay for the bank bailouts, well now you don't have to wonder.
