My friend Bill sent me the latest reactions out of Chicago to Obama’s new housing entitlement plan. It. was. awesome.

Click here to view the embedded video.

I love the one guy’s sarcastic reaction to the president’s plan was “How about we all stop paying our mortgage. It’s a moral hazard.”  The really sad part is that there are some people who really believe that thought.

Seeeeee – common sense DOES exist in Chicago, just not in any of our politicians.

From Wikipedia on the “no taxation without representation” history

No taxation without representation” began as a slogan in the period 1763–1776 that summarized a primary grievance of the British colonists in the Thirteen Colonies. In short, many in those colonies believed the lack of direct representation in the distant British Parliament was an illegal denial of their rights as Englishmen, and therefore laws taxing the colonists (the kind of law that affects the most individuals directly), and other laws applying only to the colonies, were unconstitutional.

Sounds about right – if it is unconstitutional to tax citizens without giving them direct representation in government, how come it IS constitutional to give direct representation to citizens who not only do not pay any taxes but also live off of the increased taxation on those citizens who DO pay taxes?   There’s an interesting question to mull over.

Couple of pics from the protests against the porkulus (via Black & Right and Michelle Malkin)…this first pic relates to this topic.

To the lady callin’ out my girl Henrietta – Ain’t that the truffffffffffffffff!

A friend told me that she felt if you didn’t pay taxes then your right to vote should not be allowed. I totally get her sentiment – contribute to pool and you shall be allowed to swim like everyone else basically. Everyone can pay SOME tax. Unfortunately, some may pay more than others under our punishing income tax system, but nobody should be excused from any. And further more if people are excused from paying income tax they shouldn’t even be qualifying for a credit or refund of any kind. People should not be paid to live in the U.S. by the government while they refuse to get out there and work like the rest of us.

And BY far this was the best photo out of the protests:

So last night while I’m cooking dinner I open up my latest Social Security statement. And it TOTALLY picked my spirits up! Oh, not in a good way, more like a “this is so sad I don’t know what to do besides laugh” kind of way.   I know – good times.

Here’s the deal, liberals act like Social Security is a grand, successful legacy of FDR’s big New Deal programs, etc.  But even though time after time it’s been proven that Social Security, to put it mildly, SUCKS, for some reason any attempt to reform it is met with such disdain and hesitation from the far left. It’s so perplexing to me the type of backlash Bush got when he suggested privatizing it. Bottom line, Social Security is failing because it was never designed right to be a long-term retirement program. The first clue should be that the program is on the Autobahn speedway to bankruptcy. How soon? Try in anywhere from 8-20 years. Because that’s when the revenues of Social Security will actually start to dry up (via the Constitutional Conservative).

While the Social Security trust fund will have resources until 2041, the more critical date in terms of government revenues will occur in 2017. In that year, Social Security, which has been providing billions of dollars in surpluses to the government for over two decades, will start having to pay out more in benefits than it will receive that year in payroll taxes.

At that point, the government will have to start replacing the money it has borrowed from the Social Security trust fund. It can do that only by increasing borrowing from the public, raising taxes or cutting other government programs. The elimination of the Social Security surplus is a key reason that experts are projecting sizable budget deficits in future years.

Okay, so let us take a look at a real-world scenario of how “well” Social Security is working – it’s my own example.

I’ve been contributing to my Social Security trust fund since 1994. My current contribution is that 6% of my paycheck goes to Social Security and it’s been this percentage most of my income-earning years.  From 1994 – 2009 YTD my contributions have totaled $14,000 and my employers have “contributed” (i.e. paid a Social Security tax that would otherwise go to my salary) another $14,000. That’s a total of $28,000 for over 15 years, averaging to about $1,866 for the growth of the fund.   Let me break that down:

Now, let’s look at my privatized, personal 401k. I’ve been contributing to my 401k since 2005 at 6% for a couple years and most recently 8% (increased percentage resulted in about an extra $60 a month). My company matches $.50 on the dollar up to 6%.  My employer also does a profit sharing plan, so at the end of each year I get a bit more put into my 401k like every employee at the company. In total, between 2005 – 2009 YTD my contribution to my portfolio’s growth is $9,000 and my employer’s is also around $9,000 for a total of $18,000 over 4 years, which ends up at an average growth of $4,500 a year.  Also, keep in mind that this is my 401k during the current financial crisis. Prior to the crisis my retirement fund had grown to around $23,000.  So it would be outperforming SS even more in that scenario. In this one, SS clearly has the handicap advantage.  Here’s the visual breakdown of my 401k’s average year growth:

Is it starting to get clear? Here’s the liberal’s stance myth – Social Security works and we should not reform it except raising payroll taxes on people with higher incomes to sustain the funding of the SS trust (which would then equal to those same people having less money to put in their 401k accounts if they so choose to). Here’s the reality – Social Security is a failing entitlement program on its way to bankruptcy and even if it didn’t go bankrupt it pales in comparision in regard to the performance growth of privatized retirement funds.  Privatized retirement accounts are much better and as a responsible government we should find ways to enrich citizens to take control of their own retirement trusts, not scheme to keep them on limited/fixed-income entitlement programs. Why oppress citizens to stay under a trust that only grows at 2-3% a year (SS) when they can have a fund that grows at 8-10% a year?

There’s no reason we cannot reform Social Security into a privatized fund – anyone who tells you otherwise doesn’t know jack about 401k accounts. But you know, stocks and Wall Street are evil! (Rolling Eyes.) Riiiight – I’ll be sure to keep that in mind when I have the choice to retire at 59 on $5,000/month from my 401k and then see those who will rely on Social Security being forced to retire only starting at 62 on $1,300/month.  And that’s betting on the idea that Social Security will still be around then.