Posted on 04/28/2005 4:00:18 PM PDT by Howlin
FROM WASHINGTON
Pres. Bush Press Conf. Tonight
At the White House, Pres. Bush holds an evening press confer-ence. The President intends to talk about his Social Security reform plan and his energy plan. He is also likely to get questions on other topics such as the John Bolton nomination, Senate filibuster rules on judicial nomina-tions, House ethics rules, etc.
Live at 8:00 P.M. EDT
Watch live from the White House web site:
(Link on right)
or
(link at top)
and all the usual suspected news outlets.
The point is that it will happen sooner or later. Social Security cannot, nor should it be, fixed. The demand will eventually overwhelm the supply of money coming from the working public. Hopefully, God willing, there will be a few conservatives left, that will call for it to be ended. Unfortunately I don't expect that call to come from either faction of the one party that sits in Washington currently
No, it is what I think. But the weak politicians currently occupying office are not helping to lower that number by continually pandering to a public that has no concern except for their personal needs. Which leads to yet another reason why we shouldn't vote for President or Senate, as the Framers intended
No, it is what I think.
Thanks for the clarification.
And it's about time too! Some of these media people are overdue for a spanking!
What is your vision for old poor people?
I need to rephrase that for my own benefit, because I don't see how those pieces (bonds purchased while working; annuity at retirement; asset 100% depletion point) fit together.
As for "additional cost to the system," who gives a rip if its object is wealth transfer, ala "those that die early help pay for those that live to a ripe old age." Transfer money until Atlas shrugs.
It is obvious that if a modified system leaves wealth in the hands of the citizen, where now it leaves ZERO, the difference has to come from somewhere. Most of us see that "somewhere" as our own pocketbook. And the all-government-bond solution would leave the money in the hands of the government until the buyer retires (at which time the cash flow reverses - possibly under control of the government) or dies (at which time residual value transfers to heirs), only giving the buyer an "identifiable account," and disposing of the "private market is unreliable" argument because the account isn't subject to the whims of the stock market.
A series of government bonds, purchased at a rate of 12% of income, for a work period of 40 years (age 25-65), would produce a future income stream: 12% of 40K a year for 40 years, with 2% monthly compound interest, nets $294 grand - at 3% nets 370 grand - and at 4% nets 473 grand. I haven't checked the SS tables to see how the payouts compare (between SS and interest alone on accumulated principle), but even the best scenario would provide only 19 grand a year of interest only. I assume this is where your annuity would convert some of the principle into a series of payments.
If the system is really nothing more than old-age welfare, then let's start calling it that, and dispense with the pretense. Available to those who need it, unavailable if you are above poverty, and the tax system finances the payout.
Your numbers look about right, but overall, since the IOU'S in the drawer assume a 5 year treasury bond return, the net change in the benefits will be next to nothing overall, and in the partially privitized system, as originally proposed by Bush, probably a slightly negative proposition. 5 year treasuries don't typically earn 3% above inflation.
The percentage I used were not "above inflation," they were just straight return. I assume the "partial privatization plan" redirects some of the government held principle to the stock market. It should change NOTHING as far as payout, and only affect the timing of when the system is no longer self-sustaining (assuming any given demographic projection).
What I still don't have a handle on is the difference between the bond payout (for talking purposes, I decide to do it on my own and just take the interest), and the SS payout given the identical wage history.
SS is all about transferring money as it should be. It is primarily an insurance system. It also cross subsidizes to lower income workers, as it should, and Bush wants to do more of that, and about that he is right.
Then advocate changing the nature of the discussion to suit that model. It's welfare for the downtrodden. Roll the tax into general income tax, and start spreading the wealth around. Why the "retirement fund" charade? It costs money to maintain.
Mine is that they are old and have poor vision
The press however was terrible. The administration needs to use "Reagan Rules" and limit followups to the number stated before the original question. The current policy of permitting the kind of bickering seen tonight demeans the office.
It is around the same in the aggregate, but goes in many different directions, including disability payments, so the straight payout in SS retirement benefits is lower, in the aggregate. Since the system subsidizes lower wage workers, what is in play at 40K I don't know. That is probably around the tipping point, so probably not much. It does help to have a non working wife. That is a nice SS subsidy. The non working wife gets half the benefit after the working spouse dies.
And yes, I favor in a perfect world a straight old age welfarist pension plan, for the safety net part of the system. Private pension plans should be the add on.
Very disgusted with him right now.
What the helll did we get the vote out for? For this?
I am almost to the point of going to DC in front of the White House with a sign, "NO MORE ILLEGAL ALLIENS".
i guess then that we half way agree, except that private accounts avoid the moral hazard of politicians spending taxes otherwise diverted to them since future expectations ensure additional levies to close the deficit
my problem with the dems is not that they recognize the social necessity to buy off the have-nots, but rather that they're slaughtering the goose that lays the golden eggs to fete the special interests that give them power and privilege
however, under your vision, even if you spent the next decades until social security collapses building a fort for your heirs, it wouldn't keep them from being ravaged by the starving hordes
maybe someday the free state project will get off the ground and you'll make piles of rudolph and mcveigh currency that you won't have to share with anybody
how bout "NO MORE ILLITERATE INGRATES"?
It was poor and rambling even by Bush standards.
Dubya never sounded more coherent or confident. If he had sounded like that 4-5 years ago there would be none of the running jokes about his mental acumen.
I hate to say, I missed some of it. From what I did see, he was fine. But, could you please tell me........ did he finish the press conference by saying to the "reporters" something like, "thank you for all your answers" ..... instead of "thank you for your questions? Did he say the wrong word or was I just too tired to hear correctly?
...... good!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.