SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (641878)1/11/2012 10:24:17 PM
From: Brumar891 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1578573
 
What do you think you learn from a guided tour?



To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (641878)1/12/2012 7:11:41 AM
From: Brumar891 Recommendation  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1578573
 
The 10 Worst States for Retirees in 2012

By Robert Powell | MarketWatch – 17 hours ago

Connecticut edged out Illinois as the worst state to retire to.

No. 1: Connecticut.


Granby, Conn.

If you live in Illinois, we have some good news for you. You no longer live in the absolute worst state in which to retire. The bad news? You live in the second-worst state, according to research released Wednesday by TopRetirements.com. Connecticut now has the dubious honor of being the worst state to spend your golden years, according to John Brady, the president of TopRetirements.com who by odd coincidence also lives in Connecticut. “The Nutmeg State does have considerable charm and some terrific places to live, if you can afford to live here,” said Brady.

No. 2: Illinois.
Now truth be told, Brady said Illinois actually tied Connecticut as being the worst state in his research. But ultimately Connecticut earned the inglorious honor of being the worst place for retirees; its property taxes, personal income taxes, and cost of living are higher than that of Illinois.But Illinois has plenty of woe: “Its pension funding, deficit spending, unemployment, and foreclosure rates are among the worst of any states,” Brady said.

No. 3: Rhode Island.

This year, Brady expanded the number of factors he evaluates to five; the state’s fiscal health, property taxes, state income tax, cost of living and climate. Now, he readily admits that you have to establish your own criteria for identifying the best or worst state for your retirement, but these factors represent what is likely to be important to most people. For Rhode Island, its high taxes outweighed the great places to live along its extensive coastline and numerous bays and harbors.

No. 4: Vermont.
According to Brady, some states are spending more money than they take in and are in serious trouble. To evaluate a state’s fiscal health, Brady examined the state’s deficit, unfunded pension liabilities, unemployment rates and foreclosures. Those four factors combined added up to a maximum of one point in the rankings. In Vermont, high income and property taxes pose the biggest problem.



Boston

No. 5: Massachusetts.

Among the taxes you might face in retirement, property taxes are usually the most oppressive for retirees, Brady said. According to the Consumer Expenditure Survey, for instance, the average American 65 and older pays $1,919 in property taxes, which represents 4.6% of the average income ($41,286) for that cohort. By contrast, the average American age 55 to 64 has income of $68,906 and pays $2,216 in property taxes. That represents just 3.2% of their income. For his research, the 10 states with the highest property taxes were awarded one point on a sliding scale. Property taxes are the big curse for Massachusetts residents.

[Also see: Has the Housing Market Finally Hit Bottom?]

No. 6: New Jersey.
New Jersey, which has the highest median property taxes in the country earned, 1.1 points on the tax scale. “The median property tax in the Garden State is the highest in the U.S. at $6,579. It also has the highest tax burden (as reported by the Tax Foundation), a large budget deficit issue, and very high cost of living,” Brady said. “On the plus side, it excludes most pension and Social Security income for couples making less than $100,000.”

No. 7: Minnesota.
When you look at the various sources of income for the average American age 65 and older, you’ll note at least one interesting fact: Earned income represents nearly 28% of total income for the average American age 65 and older. By contrast, Social Security represents nearly 37% of total income. In other words, two thirds of total income comes from two sources — work and Social Security. That means, where you live while you work after age 65 could make a big difference in your take-home pay. For his study, Brady created a hypothetical couple that had $70,000 in income from Social Security, earnings, pensions and retirement savings. The 10 states with the highest taxes on earned income earned up to one negative point. Minnesota hits residents with the fourth-highest income tax in the country.



New York City

No. 8: New York.

Make no mistake about it, the higher the cost of living, the lower your potential standard of living. For his research, Brady awarded states with the highest cost of living one negative point. “Surprisingly, New York did not earn any negative points for income taxes, since it offers generous exemptions for Social Security, pensions, along with a high standard deduction,” Brady said. It is, however, an expensive place to live; it ranks as the fourth costliest state in the country just behind Hawaii, Washington, D.C., and Alaska.

No. 9: Maine.
If you’re like most retirees, you probably want to live where it’s warm in the winters. That means states north of the Mason-Dixon line get a negative one point. And Maine is about as far north as you can get.

No. 10: Wisconsin.
So where does that leave us? Essentially, with a list dominated by states in the Northeast and Midwest. What’s important to note is that this year’s list is slightly different from last year’s list. New to the list are Vermont, Minnesota and Maine. States lucky enough to leave the list are Ohio, Nevada and California, which Brady says is more a reflection of changes to the TopRetirements.com rating system. Read TopRetirements.com report about the 10 worst states to retire to.You can sign up for Brady’s free weekly “Best Places to Retire” newsletter at this website.

finance.yahoo.com



To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (641878)1/12/2012 12:51:11 PM
From: Brumar892 Recommendations  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1578573
 


When Elephants Fly



I don’t want to say that Tom Friedman was hallucinating, so I will merely suggest that he had a vision. He thought he saw a bunch of flying elephants.

He was so enamored of the vision that he wrote a column about it. The column’s title: “Watching Elephants Fly.”


You would never guess that the column is about the current state of political affairs in Egypt. Oh, and by the way, it also addresses Friedman’s own failures to understand the situation.

Friedman wants us to think that the impossible is taking place in Egypt. Since it’s impossible to predict the impossible, Friedman wants to be excused for not having foreseen the current state of Egyptian politics.

When I first saw the title of the column, I thought that perhaps Friedman had confused elephants with pigs. When people want to claim that something cannot possibly happen, they often evoke the adnyaton: when pigs fly.

Further research showed me that I had leapt to the wrong conclusion. While it is true that pigs cannot fly, there is one famous flying elephant, whose name is Dumbo.

Granted, Dumbo is a character in a Walt Disney cartoon or even in a Disney theme park.

To give Friedman full credit, I conclude that he was trying to tell us that he lives in a world where elephants fly. That is to say, he lives in a cartoon.

Perhaps he has missed his calling.

Friedman opens his column with a typically grandiose pronunciamento: “Whenever you see elephants flying, shut up and take notes. The Egyptian uprising is the equivalent of elephants flying. No one predicted it, and no one had seen this before. If you didn’t see it coming, what makes you think you know where it’s going? That’s why the smartest thing now is to just shut up and take notes.”

Obviously, Friedman has fallen into deep denial. Last year he was cheering the arrival of democracy in Egypt.


Now that the Egyptian people have voted, it turns out that they do not share Friedman’s liberal values. They voted overwhelmingly for radical Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists.


Tom Friedman, if seems was helping to pave the way for an Islamist takeover of Egypt.

Now, he’s in a bind. He might admit that he was wrong and explain how he was so completely duped by the event.

But, we know that he is not going to do that.

He did not attain to his exalted position by admitting to error. He, like more than a few other columnists, got where he is by refusing to admit to error.


In what is certainly not a profile in moral courage Friedman is telling everyone to shut up. If people start talking about what is happening in Egypt, it will make Tom Friedman look bad. It will make him look like he is living in a cartoon.

What is the reasoning behind his insulting demand? Friedman declares that since no one saw what was coming in Egypt no one has any right to analyze the current situation or to look toward the future.

So, Tom Friedman is ordering you all to shut up.

By implication, he does not believe in freedom of speech or in the marketplace of ideas. Nor does he believe that policy analysts should project different future eventualities.

Besides, it’s better for people to shut up than to start talking about how bad Friedman’s columns are.

Right now, anyone who is not preparing for an Egypt run by the Muslim Brotherhood is living in a cartoon.

Of course, Friedman knows who won the elections. He just wants to put his own spin on the issue.

In his words: “To not be worried about the theocratic, antipluralistic, anti-women’s-rights, xenophobic strands in these Islamist parties is to be recklessly naïve. But to assume that the Islamists will not be impacted, or moderated, by the responsibilities of power, by the contending new power centers here and by the priority of the public for jobs and clean government is to miss the dynamism of Egyptian politics today.”

Let’s see. On the one hand we have the aspirations of the Egyptian people. They want freedom, justice, jobs, and clean government. But, they voted for the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists who have no real interest in any of the above.

By Friedman's logic the Egyptian people, nearly half of whom are illiterate, favor peace between their country and Israel. While I hate to predict the future, what would you wager that a referendum renouncing the peace treaty with Israel passes overwhelming in newly liberal democracy Egypt?

Friedman believes that the Islamists will be moderated by the responsibilities of power. If they fail to deliver for the people, they will be voted out of office. Otherwise, there might even be another insurrection.

It’s a thesis. It may come true. At the least, it allows Tom Friedman to avoid facing the stark realities of today’s Egypt.

If we want to put his ideas to the test, we can ask which Islamist regime has moderated its policies by the responsibilities of power.

Is Friedman thinking of Afghanistan under the Taliban? Is he thinking of Iran?

Does he recall 1979 when his liberal soulmates were thrilling to the overthrow of the Shah of Iran? Does he remember when they all claimed that the Ayatollah Khomeni would bring democracy to Iran?

In truth, tyrants, despots and terrorists are not inclined to moderate their policies when their policies are not working. Think of Mao’s China or Stalin’s Soviet Union.


Mao’s policies produced a famine that killed tens of millions of people. Did he take responsibility and moderate his ideology? Not at all. He launched a cultural revolution to blame everyone but him and his wife.

If Friedman believes that the aspirations of the people will out, then he should provide us with examples of countries that gave power to a bunch of fanatics and extremists, only to see them moderate their policies.

Amazingly enough, Friedman, like his colleague Nicholas Kristof, never seems to consider that his Egyptian interlocutors are simply telling him what he wants to hear.

Perhaps these Egyptians are so well-versed in the art of media spin or so well-mannered and polite, that they do not tell New York Times reporters how much they hate infidels.

When speaking to liberal reporters they mouth the liberal party line. They do not admit that they hate infidels and want to suppress all the Coptic Christians and Israeli Jews.

And they do not tell Friedman and Kristof that, all things considered, it would be a very bad idea for either of them to move to Egypt today.



Posted by Stuart Schneiderman
stuartschneiderman.blogspot.com