THOSE WHO MAKE A CAREER OF SERVING OUR NATION in the armed forces know that they are earning a nice retirement as they do so. Men and women who serve 20 years can retire with half the rate of pay they were earning at the point they retired, for life — and if active-duty people get a raise, so do retirees. Those who serve 30 years receive 75 percent of their rate at retirement, and the few who actually put in 40 years of service receive their full pay at retirement for the rest of their lives.
These facts raise few eyebrows among taxpayers. People who wear the uniforms of our armed forces put their lives, bodies and sanity at risk for our nation, and providing a comfortable retirement for them and their families seems only fair.
In the years before the advent of 401(k) plans and other tax-deferred retirement savings plans, the majority of American workers had what were called “defined benefit” plans, so that retiring after years of service to one company would result in a guaranteed monthly income that was not subject to the ups and downs of Wall Street. This was part of an implicit deal between workers and management: You gave the company your prime years, and in return the company provided for your retirement.
401(k) plans were sold as a way to “give the worker the power to manage his own retirement” and thus get out from under the grip of paternalistic corporations. What it really was was a way for the management class to relieve itself of its responsibility for its workers, and as a bonus earn Wall Street hefty fees for managing all those new investments.
In an editorial on Nov. 17, the Washington Post editorial board posited the following:
“(T)he poverty rate among the elderly is 9.1 percent, lower than the national rate of 15 percent — and much lower than the 21.8 percent rate among children.
“This suggests that Social Security is doing a good job of fighting poverty as is and that those gains could be preserved in any attempt to trim the program. … (I)f anyone has a claim on a greater share of federal resources, it would seem to be the young — and especially the poor young. Unchecked entitlement spending for the elderly crowds out spending on programs that might help them, as well as defense, research, infrastructure and law enforcement.”
My new favorite Democrat, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, did not mince words on the floor of the Senate in her response to the editorial:
“No retirement crisis? Tell that to the millions of Americans who are facing retirement without a pension. Tell that to the millions of Americans who have nothing to fall back on except Social Security. There is a $6.6 trillion gap between what Americans under 65 are currently saving and what they will need to maintain their current standard of living when they hit retirement. $6.6 trillion — and that assumes Social Security benefits aren’t cut. Make no mistake: This is a crisis.
“The call to cut Social Security has an uglier side to it, too. The Washington Post framed the choice as more children in poverty versus more seniors in poverty. The suggestion that we have become a country where those living in poverty fight each other for a handful of crumbs tossed off the tables of the very wealthy is fundamentally wrong. This is about our values, and our values tell us that we don’t build a future by first deciding who among our most vulnerable will be left to starve.”
Preach it, Elizabeth.
I think it is time to acknowledge the obvious: for the vast majority of workers, 401(k)s have been a failure. According to Forbes magazine:
“Our national demographics, coupled with indisputable, glaringly insufficient retirement savings and human physiology, suggest that a catastrophic outcome for at least a significant percentage of our elderly population is inevitable. With the average 401(k) balance for 65 year olds estimated at $25,000 by independent experts — $100,000 if you believe the retirement planning industry — the decades many elders will spend in forced or elected ‘retirement’ will be grim.”
It is often pointed out that Social Security was not designed to provide anything like a generous retirement, but more to prevent the abject poverty that used to be relatively ordinary among seniors.
Less often mentioned is that Social Security’s designers assumed the defined-benefit pensions I mentioned previously would do the heavy lifting of providing a comfortable retirement — and for decades they did. But since that is no longer the case, and since 401(k)s and other “defined contribution” plans have utterly failed to replace them, I think it is time to look at some alternative solutions.
I mentioned the military retirement system at the beginning of this column, where years of service determines how much you get; more service means more money. That might serve as a template for any adequate national pension system.
More on that next week.
Matt Talbot is a writer and poet, as well as an old Benicia hand. He works for a tech start-up in San Francisco.
Sharing is caring!
Interesting as always, Matt. 30+ years of corporate experience each and we have SS only as retirement at ages 70 and 67, and we’re still working 40+ hours per week, with no end in sight…Without our SS, we’d be in the creek! Peter Bray, Benicia, CA
New deal democrats or corporate democrats–which will it be?
From the above article:
“My new favorite Democrat, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren,”
From the article below:
Obama is proposing, along with the support of Republicans and many Democrats, to change how annual increases in Social Security benefits are calculated. Obama wants to switch to a different formula, called Chained CPI. This switch would result in a benefit cut of $230 billion dollars over 10 years. All this is being done under the guise of “strengthening” the program and “securing it for future generations”.
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2013/11/obama-wants-cut-social-security.html#more-6837
New Deal Democrats or corporate CEO’s–which will it be?
From the above article:
“The safety net”— “Preach it, Elizabeth.”
A passage from the article below for the community to contemplate…
“Two lobby groups have organized CEOs into an austerity army. One is the Fix the Debt campaign, which is spending tens of millions of dollars on slick PR tactics to garner public support for cutting popular programs like Social Security and Medicare. More than 135 chief executives have signed up as Fix the Debt spokespeople.”
“The other is the Business Roundtable, a 40-year-old club for about 200 of America’s most powerful CEOs. The Roundtable doesn’t sugarcoat. They want everybody to work until age 70 before they can get
Social Security.”
“Like Cote, these are people who are sitting on massive nest eggs of their own. According to a new report by my organization, the Institute for Policy Studies, and the Center for Effective Government, Business Roundtable CEOs have retirement accounts worth $14.5 million on average. That’s enough to generate a monthly retirement check of $86,043 starting at age 65. By contrast, the average monthly Social Security check is only $1,237.”
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/20150-ceos-against-grandmas
New Deal Deal Democrats or corporate democrats–which will it be?
From the above article:
“The safety net”— “Preach it, Elizabeth.”
A key passage from the article below for the community to ponder…
“Social Security isn’t the answer to all of our retirement problems. We need to find ways to tackle the financial squeeze that is crushing our families.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/11/18/elizabeth-warren-dont-cut-social-security-expand-it/
New Deal Deal Democrats or corporate democrats–which will it be?
“We need to find ways to tackle the financial squeeze that is crushing our families.”
–Elizabeth Warren
The the article below gives the reader a clear and concise reason why workers and families are being crushed…
The great corporate myth-making machine has been hard at work of late, attempting to create the false
impression that US corporations are increasingly uncompetitive with their foreign rivals due to the fact they pay much higher corporate taxes in the US and abroad than their capitalist counterparts. But that is one of the great myths perpetrated by corporate apologists, pundits and their politician friends. The myth is high in the pantheon of conscious falsifications their marketing machines feed the American public, right up there along with such other false notions that ‘business tax cuts create jobs’, ‘free trade benefits everyone’, ‘income inequality is due to a worker’s own low productivity contribution’, ‘overpaid public workers are the cause of states’ budget deficits’, or that ‘social security and medicare are going broke’.
If corporate America can create and sell the idea that they pay more taxes than their offshore capitalist cousins, then they are half way home to getting their paid politicians to provide them still more corporate tax cuts—a proposal by the way that both Republicans and Obama are on record for, in their joint proposal to reduce the top corporate tax rate from 35% to 28% (Obama) or 25% (Republicans).
US corporations don’t pay the nominal corporate tax rate of 35% today; they pay an effective (i.e. actual) rate of only 12%. The additional effective state-wide corporate income tax they pay amounts to only a 2% or so—not the 10% they claim. And the effective corporate tax on offshore earnings is only another 2.2% or so—not the 20% average they’ll complain. So the total US tax for US corporations is barely 16%–not the 35% plus 10% (state) plus 20% (offshore) nominal tax rate. And however you cut it, the story is the same: US corporations’ share of total federal tax revenues have been in freefall for decades. The share of corporate taxes as a percent of GDP and national income has halved over the decades. And corporations since 2008 have realized record level profits during the ‘Obama Recovery’—while their taxes as a percent of profits since 2008 is half that of the average paid as recently as 1987-2007.
For the moment, what all the corporate tax cutting to date has produced is a mountain of corporate cash. US Corporations today in fact are sitting on more than $10 TRILLION in cash!
Add all that up and its well more than $10 trillion in buybacks, payouts, and hoarded cash (onshore and offshore) by US corporations since 2009—i.e. during the sub-par economic recovery (for the rest of us) of the past four years. That’s corporate income and cash that has been diverted, hoarded, or otherwise not committed to US real investment, and therefore never contributing to jobs, income creation and consumption in the US. No wonder consumption (70% of the US economy) for the bottom 80% households in the US has been stagnating, stalling, or declining in the US in recent years. No wonder all the US economy can do is create low wage, contingent, service jobs, while more than 20 million are still unemployed and uncounted millions more have left the US labor force altogether. No consumption recovery follows declining US investment, while tens of trillions of dollars go elsewhere or sit on the sidelines.
http://www.zcommunications.org/the-great-corporate-tax-shift-part-1-by-jack-rasmus.html
Matt s/s is a forced savings for retirement. Employee or self employed and the employer put in a set amount which has risen over the years. It is not a deduction on your gross income you pay the taxes before it is deducted from your income. In many cases you pay taxes on that deduction twice which becomes income after 62 in some cases at a high of 85% of total recieved for tax purposes. Thanks to Clinton it was upped from 50%. Now many could pay little if any taxes on that income. Not so with a 401K plan. You pay taxes on income after it is deducted. Deferred taxes. 401k have been around for almost 40 years. In the case of 401k it is also a savings for retirement but not a forced savings. Everyone has the opportunity to have these plane. On your own or tjrough your employee. Even if not offered in employment you still have yourself to do your own plan. Put money in small amounts over say 30/40 years and you now have an amount that will without a doubt help you in your retirement years. If you do not do that just whose fault is that? The rich Republicans? I do not think so. Try a little self discipline and it will work. Remember you do have the ability to move that money around or just freeze it. Every little bit helps. Responsibility is the answer and it seems we are a little short of that.
Liberals describe cuts as anything below baseline amounts which in fact are an increase. So cuts must be below the set amount not the upped amount. Liberal math.
From the article: With the average 401(k) balance for 65 year olds estimated at $25,000 by independent experts…
That statement warrants closer scrutiny in regards to answering the question: Why would someone after 40 years of working have managed to save only $12.00 a week (assumes zero interest)?
It is probable that is not the case and instead his savings are miniscule for one of the following primary (there may be secondary ones as well) reasons:
1. Poor investments
2. Market losses
3. Early withdrawals of funds
4. Failure to save.
Of those four reasons, three of them are self-inflicted; the result of poor personal decisions.
What Elizabeth ‘Fake-a-Hontas’ Warren is concerned about is how we can justify taking money from those who planned well to provide for those who did not.
I don’t want to see ‘Fifty ALPO recipes you’ll Love’ become a best seller, but we need to also look at long term solutions so that those who are still working will not become a burden on future generations.
I see no mention of any such possible solutions for that.
Saving $50.00 a week each week through a 40 year career results in savings of over $450,000. If one starts with a seed deposit of $500. And saves $75 a week the amount approaches $700,000.
Planning of that type is what needs to be encouraged, instead of continued reliance on government enforced generosity.
Elizabeth Warren is one of the few politicians who were actually looking out for middle-class America.
I do believe Dennis we are saying about the same thing.
Bob,
I have been having issues with Word Press no accepting my posts. I wrote it in a Word format prior to your post, then posted after you.
I fully understand and fully agree with what you wrote.
Matt –
What would you say if I told you that you could become a millionaire for less than $40 per week out of pocket? A 401k will allow that.
Someone making $50,000 per year that puts 6% of their salary with a company matching contribution of 3% of salary will invest $375 per month. At 8% annual growth rate for 40 years their 401k balance will be $1.3 million. Their weekly investment pre-tax will be $58. If they pay 33% income tax, their out of pocket will be $39.
Someone that waits 20 years to begin this contribution will still have a balance of $220,000 after a 40 year career.
We should be advising people to take maximum advantage of the 401k programs. Young people in particular should be taught the value of this approach. At the start of your career contribute a sufficient amount to maximize the company matching provision. Invest in an S&P 500 index fund. Leave it alone until retirement. You will be able to take care of yourself in your golden years. Enjoy your retirement. You’ve earned it.
Tom is exactly right.
We also need to consider another comment made on this subject in the original article:
earn Wall Street hefty fees for managing all those new investments.
Hear the argument of “Greedy Bankers!” ? This plays well to those not well versed in the realities of the financial market.
But Tom’s point: Invest in an S&P 500 index fund. Leave it alone until retirement.”
That is the real key to both riding out market up’s and down’s while also minimizing the fees an individual pays for the holding of your money.
The real money is not made in the transaction and other fee’s the real money is in the investments made with the accumulated money from tens of thousands of individuals.
Tom, I agree with the point you are trying to make, but I can’t help but comment on the 8% annual rate of return. It is assumptions like that which have led to billions to unfunded penion liabilities for the taxpayers of California.
State, city, county and federal pensions are guaranteed at a pre determined amount. If theyu go below that LEVEL THE TAX PAYERS PAY THE BILL. With a 401k you ride out the ups and downs and in the long run it is your money. There are good things about both. But remember city, county, state and federal until recently did not have that option. So 401k for the folks that did not have a pension in the long run were given an opportunity to use self discipline to determine their own retirement future. Do you think the folks shouild pay for someone who did not take ADVantGE OF a 401k and now is coming up shorty? Think about it..
My point is that assuming an 8% annual return is unrealistic. It should be closer to 5%.
John –
According to Wikipedia the Cumulative Annual Growth Rate for the S&P 500 since 1970 is 9.94%. The median annual return is 15.06%. An analysis assuming an 8% return is actually pretty conservative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S&P_500
For those interested in investing I recommend Jeremy Siegel’s, “Stocks for the Long Run”.
Read the multitude of articles that exist. I don’t care what the S&P rate of return is. Assuming a 7.5% annual rate of return as CalPers does is idiotic. Every actuary that has independently reviewed this says a relistic rate of return is closer to 3%. That is why the state has unfunded pension liabilities in the BILLIONS!
John –
I chose the S&P 500 index because it is broad, diversified and easy for the average person to invest in. Facts and data show that an 8% return in the S&P 500 index is a conservative assumption over a long term.
Per CalPERS website their 10 year average rate of return stands at 7% over the 10 year period ending 8/31/13. Underfunding at CalPERS is not due to low returns.
http://www.calpers.ca.gov/eip-docs/about/facts/facts-at-a-glance.pdf
Above you have suggested using 5% or 3% as the rate of return. Returning to my scenario of a person making $50,000 per year, investing 6% of salary with a company match of 3% of salary over 40 years:
Their balance will be $1.3 million with an 8% average rate of return.
At 5% rate of return their balance will be $570,000.
3% return will yield $350,000.
Start savings and investing early. Start small. Make it a lifelong habit. You will be able to provide for yourself in retirement.
John is was caused because the members were not putting in the correct amount each year to cover each members obligations and it went short because of the econ slow down which did not meet projected returns on investments. That has now been corrected and the members will put in the correct amount each year. It will be a burden on members budgets like the city of Benicia because of the increased amount to CAlPers each year. But they will at some time very soon get up to date. Not that long ago the City{employers share} was almost zero it is now considerable higher and going up. Simple answer is slow econ and unfunded obligations.
All of the above comments are fine – in the abstract.
Yes, if everyone practiced perfect discipline and saved every month without fail and the market didn’t tank the last few years before everyone retired and no one ever had a family crisis like an uncovered medical expense and no one ever got divorced and no one’s children ever got in an expensive bind and no one ever bought a house…
Then yes, 401ks would work just fine.
The thing is, 401(k)s have not worked out that way in people’s real, actual lives. 401(k)s have failed at their mission. We need a “Plan B”.
Reminds me of the old joke about economists: An engineer and an economist fall down a well. At the bottom, the engineer begins making measurements and testing the strength of the lining materials and looking for a way out, while economist says, “Assume a ladder…”
Matt –
Successfully leveraging 401k’s is not an abstract concept. Real people are actually doing it! According to a recent LA Times article, the average 401k balance for pre-retirees age 55 and older who have been active in their plan for at least 10 years was $269,500. The Times cited Fidelity Investments, the nation’s largest 401k provider.
http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-78182441/
Do you really think that saving $40 a week represents “practiced perfect discipline”? Is cutting back spending by $2000 per year so that your net worth increases by $4500 a hardship? I’d call that a wise investment and encourage all young people to educate themselves on the benefits of a well-funded 401k.
Life will happen, thank God. We will all face challenges. Good challenges such as purchasing a house, funding college, or a memorable family vacation. We will be faced with negative challenges as well. How many people have lower than average 401k balances due to life’s challenges? How many due to insufficient savings? According to statistics cited below, American’s are currently saving 4.6% of income. That is down from the 8% to 10% savings rate during the 1960’s.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/personal-savings
Do we need a Plan B, or do people need to be educated on the values of Plan A? Do people just need to stick to Plan A? It costs $40 per week.
C’mon, Tom – you’re missing the point.
How has it worked out in real people’s lives? A significant fraction of Americans are essentially unable to retire, and for many it is due to factors beyond their control.
In a country as rich as the United States, we should be able to ensure that everyone who has worked for decades in the work force can have a comfortable retirement. 401(k)s have failed to provide that for a significant fraction of workers. It’s time to look at alternatives.
Matt –
Personal accountability is the point. Failing to plan is planning to fail. Zero salary in retirement is as anticipatable as anything could possibly be. Saving and investing for that future reality is the only solution to allow for retirement. It really doesn’t take much of a sacrifice. Start early. Start small. Make it a lifelong habit.
It has worked out well for many.
In one of your earlier articles you stated that young people should choose their career based on their desires regardless of future income potential. How is it okay to tell people to not worry about income and then demand that those with little savings be cared for by people that have?
How is it okay to tell people to not worry about income and then demand that those with little savings be cared for by people that have?
It is always easy to be generous when you are spending other people’s money.
Personal accountability is the point.
Sure – but so is our responsibility to look out for each other, and our obligation to make our society as just and fair as it can be.
It is beyond ludicrous that a country as rich as the United States can’t do better for its citizens.
We’re all in this together, Tom.
Social needs or private profit, which will it be?
From the above comments of Mr. Talbot:
“It is beyond ludicrous that a country as rich as the United States can’t do better for its citizens.”
“We’re all in this together, Tom.”
The article/analysis below shows and indicates that we’re not… “all in this together,”– in fact, nothing could be further from the truth!
Senator Baucus’s $1.8 Trillion Multinational Corporate Gift
http://www.zcommunications.org/the-great-us-corporate-tax-shift-part-2-by-jack-rasmus.html
Social needs or private profit,or more precisely– Democracy vs. Capitalism–which will it be?
From the above comments of Mr. Talbot:
“It is beyond ludicrous that a country as rich as the United States can’t do better for its citizens.”
“We’re all in this together, Tom.”
The article/analysis below shows and indicates that we’re not… “all in this together,”– in fact, nothing could be further from the truth!
“Since 2009, the richest one percent has captured a staggering 95 percent of all income gains, while the bottom 95 percent have seen their incomes stagnate, According to a report issued by University of California Berkeley Professor Emmanuel Saez earlier this year.”
“US income inequality grew four times faster in the first three years of the Obama administration than under Bush, according to figures published Saturday in the New York Times. As the newspaper reports, “From 2001 through 2008, during the George W. Bush administration,” the ratio of mean (average) to median income “grew at 0.28 percentage points per year. From 2009 through 2011, the latest year for which the data is available, the ratio increased 1.14 percentage points annually, or roughly four times faster.”
“The vast growth in stock prices is not the result of impersonal and impartial economic laws, but rather definite policies pursued by the Obama Administration. This administration has, during its entire existence, done everything in its power to prop up the financial system asset values of the super-rich. This has taken the form of a vast transfer of wealth from the population to the financial oligarchy.”
“The present rally began in March 2009, following a key set of decisions made by the Obama Administration to make it unmistakably clear that it would abide no impingement on the wealth of the financial oligarchy, and offload the burden of the financial crisis onto the working class>”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-16000-dow-recovery-or-transfer-of-wealth-from-the-majority-of-the-population-to-the-super-rich/5359294
“The article/analysis below shows and indicates that we’re not… “all in this together,”– in fact, nothing could be further from the truth!”
We’ve talked about this Will. I don’t understand how someone can read as much as you apparently do and not be able to detect misspellings and child-like grammatical errors. Are you there Will? Will?
World Socialist web site. Will have you gone off the deep end. Personal responsibility in a small way will and can solve the issues in future years. I cannot believe that Matt and others seem to be looking for some bale out and full support in their retirement years. Will just what are you supporting on this issue. Are you leaning Socialist on retirement?
C’mon, Tom – you’re missing the point.
Actually Matt, the point being missed is not by Tom.
Actually, yes it is.
Explain Matt.
Clearly, the public and the political parties, including the Democratic Party, are sharply at odds.
From Mr. Talbot’s above question and comments:
“How has it worked out in real people’s lives? A significant fraction of Americans are essentially unable to retire,and for many it is due to factors beyond their control.
In a country as rich as the United States, we should be able to ensure that everyone who has worked for decades in the work force can have a comfortable retirement. 401(k)s have failed to provide that for a significant fraction of workers. It’s time to look at alternatives.”
A key passage from the article below for the community to consider…
While Democratic party leaders, like House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and President Obama, in thrall to Wall Street lobbyists, have offered to cut Social Security benefits by, for example, adopting a new stingier means of calculating inflation called the “Chained CPI), polls show that Americans consistently and resoundingly support not just protecting Social Security but expanding its currently meager benefits.
The answer then is clear: If the US, where Social Security on average only provides a meager 30% of pre-retirement income to retirees, is to expand benefits, the money will have to come from a combination of higher taxes on the wealthy, higher taxes on employers, and from dramatic cuts in US military spending.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/11/22/shifting-from-defense-to-offense/
I agree. When the bloated Military-Industrial/Defense Department budget gets finally gutted, normalcy may return to what was once a non-insane country and economy. Have Rumsfeld return and help define the system’s failures where “trillions of dollars are lost and unaccounted for.” And have every member of Congress have to listen to it and ask real questions. Real questions. And then cut all non-functional Foreign Aid that goes to corrupt countries’ leaders and not their starving people and have some control over how the majority of overseas US dollars are wasted. Initiate an “IQ and Aspiration Test” whereby members of Congress have to pass a certain minimum level of intelligence and Non-Butt-Sitting Aptitude…See how pointless this all is? We are doomed to be living at the mercy of jackals, cowards, and greedy bastards…either in government or the financial industry…Where’s the signup list for Exits or Economic/Political Revolution or do we have to make our own as usual? Peter Bray, Benicia, CA
Peter stated: When the bloated Military-Industrial/Defense Department budget gets finally gutted, normalcy may return
46% of our budget is spent on Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security.
19% On Defense.
DDL:
And the “trillions of dollars at the Pentagon” that Sec. Rumsfeld couldn’t account for a few short years ago,
how have they helped anyone anywhere? And two oil- and resource-seeking wars on a credit card and recycling of National Guard units in undeclared wars, and therefore NOT requiring a draft call up of troops, how have those aided anyone? Are post-traumatic stress disabilities and severe disability injuries that will go on forever, requiring VA support for families forever, are they in your bar charts too? How do those add to your side of the ledger? Humanoids with pie charts and few if any war-disabled family members don’t add up to squat in my voting ledger. Gluttinous, do-nothing hogs in the government trough know exactly who they are. Must we be imperialistically-based on every continent and one-dog island on the planet? How much of Foreign Aid is really productive and how much is just blatant bribery? Sorry, I side with the human side of the ledger and not the armchair warhawks. PB
Peter stated: When the bloated Military-Industrial/Defense Department budget gets finally gutted, normalcy may return
The above blogger provides no source for his data?
The information from the article below, presents a different perspective regarding military spending for the community to consider…
Why Do the Percentages Vary from Group to Group?
The U.S. Government says that military spending amounts to 20% of the budget, the Center for Defense Information (CDI) reports 51%, the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) reports 43%, and the War Resisters League claims 54%. Why the variation?
Different groups have different purposes in how they present the budget figures. WRL’s goal has been to show the percentage of money that goes to the military (current and past) so that people paying — or not paying — their federal taxes would know what portion of their payments are military-oriented. Also, some of the numbers are for different fiscal years.
There are at least five different factors to consider when analyzing the U.S. budget:
discretionary spending vs. total spending
budget authority vs. outlays
function vs. agency/department
federal funds vs. unified budget
time period
http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm
Will military spending supports jobs, taxes, new ideas and more very useful things that make this country great. So we cut our military spening by any amount, where does that money now go? Unemployment? Low federal tax revenue? The military spending created real jobs. Without real jobs that also could mean high unemployment. We are in a world of hurt now. The blame game is no longer working. The military spending must increase as growth increases. It does provide dividends not just for the country’s safety but also opportunity for education and to keep this country far ahead of the rest of the world in a tech manor. It has worked and will continue to work.
Reducing the military-industrial/Pentagon gluttony would put those saved dollars into our educational standards, our infrastructure, and we would not be putting our money down an enormous rathole. See what President “Ike” Eisenhower had to say on the same issue. …pb”
try self discipline
MATT where have they failed. Please explain that. What you just said has nothing to do with 401k’s. It has everything to do with an addition to your future years in retirement. People set their own goals and may have to adjust as years go by. All the things that you state have always been there and do happen, have happened and will happen.. Just what does that have to do with a 401k plan for your future use? In peoples real, actual life your statement just what is plan B?