Do you think Social Security will be there for you?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
For the first time ever 60 percent of American workers don't think they will get any Social Security when they retire.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/07/21/art.social.security.jpg caption=""]
A USA Today/Gallup Poll shows six in 10 Americans who haven't retired yet say there will be nothing for them when they stop working.
That's the most pessimistic outlook since the question was first asked more than 20 years ago.
Younger Americans are least likely to believe they'll one day get Social Security... while those older than 55 are confident they will get benefits.
A majority of retired Americans think their benefits will be cut. Which is especially troubling when you consider that 54 percent of retirees say Social Security is their major source of income - more than any other single source.
Our government has yet another crisis on its hands, one that's been coming down the tracks in plain sight for years - yet it's not being dealt with.
Already this year Social Security will pay out more in benefits than it collects in contributions. Plus there's the whole issue of the "trust fund"... which is filled with nothing more than IOUs.
Social Security monies that are collected are siphoned off into the general treasury and spent on other things.
With a high unemployment rate, people retiring earlier than expected… and more and more baby boomers getting ready to retire, something's gotta give.
Is anybody listening?
Here’s my question to you: Do you think Social Security will be there for you?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
British prime minister flies commercial to U.S., lesson for our politicians?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
The British Prime Minister broke protocol big time during his trip to the U.S. - he flew commercial.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/07/21/art.british.air.jpg caption=""]
As one British reporter put it, David Cameron was "slumming it in business class" on the flight from London to Washington.
How refreshing. Cameron didn't take his own private jet, he didn't even fly first class. Turns out Cameron is actually walking the walk when it comes to fiscal austerity. Britain, like much of Europe, is in the midst of making drastic cuts to many government programs in order to keep its economy afloat.
Under normal circumstances, Prime Ministers travel on their own planes. They either charter a Boeing 747 or 767 or use military jets. But Downing Street officials say that Cameron's commercial flight saved $300,000. In the grand scheme of things, the amount isn't that significant - but the gesture is huge.
As one British official tells the newspaper The Sun: "When we are asking the country to tighten their belts as much as we are it's very hard to justify hiring big jets to swan around the world. It may make his travel a little harder, but the Prime Minister believes it's up to him to set an example."
Are you listening, Nancy Pelosi?
Of course, having top government officials fly commercial can cause nightmares for security-types. And it's certainly not as convenient. According to The Sun, Cameron's meetings in Washington had to be scheduled around British Airways' schedule.
Never mind all that. It's just great. Imagine the money U.S. taxpayers could save if more of our lawmakers slummed it with the rest of us on commercial airplanes.
Here’s my question to you: Is there a lesson for our politicians in the British prime minister flying commercial to America?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Good idea to build a mosque near Ground Zero?
Opponents of a proposed Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero attend a community board meeting to debate the issue in lower Manhattan. The site is so close to the location of the 9/11 terror attacks that debris from one of the hijacked planes smashed through the roof of the existing building there. (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
The debate over a proposed mosque near Ground Zero keeps heating up.
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is now firing back at Sarah Palin, who called on New Yorkers to "refudiate" - her very own made-up word - the planned mosque only blocks away from the site of the 9/11 terror attacks.
Palin called it an "unnecessary provocation" that "stabs hearts."
Bloomberg says Palin has a right to her opinions, but that he couldn't disagree more, adding: "Everything the United States stands for and New York stands for is tolerance and openness."
But even before Palin decided to step into this one - the issue has stirred lots of controversy and passion here in New York. Some relatives of 9/11 victims say it would be like a monument for terrorists... or a "sacrilege on sacred ground."
And local Republican politicians are calling for an investigation on how the center would be financed... they're also raising questions about the views of its leader. Opponents are hoping to get the city's landmarks commission to protect the current structure thereby blocking the mosque project from going forward.
But supporters insist the mosque would represent the voice of moderate Muslims. They say it's meant to improve relations between Islam and the West, and add that the location - only steps away from Ground Zero - shows how important religious freedom is in the U.S.
Some 9/11 families also support the mosque, saying there's no better symbol of tolerance and inclusion.
Besides a mosque, the proposed $100 million community center would stand 13 stories tall and include a gym, swimming pool and performing space which would be open to anyone.
Here’s my question to you: Is it a good idea to build a mosque near Ground Zero?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Extend unemployment benefits without a way to pay for them?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
After weeks of haggling - the Senate is one step closer to extending unemployment benefits.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/07/20/art.obama.rose.jpg caption="Pres. Obama speaks to the press at the White House Rose Garden after calling on Congress to extend long-term unemployment benefits to assist Americans still out of work."]
Two Republicans joined Democrats - in breaking the GOP filibuster - against extending the benefits through November. Republican leaders had earlier blocked a vote several times. They argue that any benefits extension should be offset by spending cuts. And they have a point.
This nation is quickly headed down the road to insolvency. We're more than $13 trillion in debt. And because the Democrats didn't bother to offer a way to pay for the benefits extension, another $34 billion will simply be added to the deficit.
President Obama tore into Republicans ahead of the vote... arguing that they were operating on a "misguided notion" that a new bill would discourage people from looking for work. Mr. Obama says the unemployed aren't looking for a handout, that they desperately want to work. The president described the GOP as hypocrites for voting for these benefits under Pres. Bush... but not now.
But Republicans insist it's all about fiscal responsibility. They insist they're not against unemployment benefits... they've said they'll support the bill, but only if it's paid for...
More than 2.5 million Americans have run out of unemployment benefits since the deadline passed in June.
The national unemployment rate is hovering just below 10 percent; and many economists expect it to stay high well into next year.
Here’s my question to you: Should unemployment benefits be extended without a way to pay for them?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
@jackcafferty on Twitter
Recent Comments