Posted on 01/29/2007 11:47:35 AM PST by DredTennis
Laura Ingraham, the willowy, conservative radio talker, really nailed it. She was speaking last Friday night as part of a panel discussion at a "conservative summit" in Washington held by National Review magazine. Ingraham said she was impressed by Jim Webb's televised rebuttal to President Bush's State of the Union address, particularly the part that hit on economics. In his talk, the newbie U.S. senator from Virginia launched a populist attack on the Bush economic years, railing about growing income inequality, skyrocketing CEO pay, outsourcing, and the so-called middle-class squeeze. Although Webb's stern speaking manner and improbable hair are easy to mock, Ingraham urged her fellow conservatives to pay serious attention to his message. "The party that comes off as the party that represents the American worker best is the party that wins in 2008," she said, adding that the GOP will be relegated to the political wilderness if it goes back "to being the party of the elites."
(Excerpt) Read more at usnews.com ...
FOrtunately, the vote of 340 people in their own self-interest is not a major concern, it's the millions of voters that matter, not the few that will vote for government help because they actually need it now.
You only have to convince a majority that it isn't compassionate to use government to help the few. The few will vote to save themselves, that's to be expected.
Originally, the founders had the idea that government would be controlled from confiscating people's property by the rule that all such bills would apply to all property holder's equally. That didn't work, so now it is possible to pass a law that takes wealth from some people and gives it to others.
SO we have to convince the majority not to vote for things like that.
It's not really the fact that DeVos is a CEO which turns my stomach. It is the fact that Amway and the organizations that operate under their banner are literally criminal enterprises.
Well, it's just not too smart from a political viewpoint. My impression is that a lot of races in the '06 elections featured a prominent empathy-sympathy component in the dynamic of many contests. In OH we elected a 'Rat Governor and Senator, both of whom campaigned a lot on the theme that they would "do something" on behalf of the middle class working person, never saying of course what exactly it was they would do other than it was something different from the "evil" 'Pubs who were obviously pandering to corporate interests. That played very, very well with an electorate that, for the majority, had a decent job, but knew a lot of people who didn't, and feared for their own.
What crippled me financially (from where I used to be, which was doing okay), was, one, caring for elderly parents, and, two, raising a handicapped child. Having a parent live a long time with Alzheimer's Disease and needing skilled care much of that time, which wiped out all of my parent's life savings plus a good portion of my own, and then caring for your own child, well, it kind of dashes the best laid plans of mice and CFPs. In this day and age, this kind of outcome is not all that uncommon. The last thing you need is some FR ubercapitalist social Darwinist coming along and telling you the reason you are having a financial squeeze is because you're lazy or don't try hard enough or that it's your own fault.
Do you or your wife have a pre-existing health care issue which will not be covered by Medicare?
$1.5M invested in a 25 year annuity at 1.5% (assumed 4.5% risk-free interest rate minus 3.0% annual inflation, gives a reasonable estimate of inflation-adjusted dollars) would produce an annual payment of $71,325, about 19% more than what you are earning today.
$71,300/year would cover a Medicare Supplemental Policy and a lifetime Long Term Care Insurance Policy with probably more than $50,000/year left over assuming you are both healthy.
Your CFP sounds like he is quoting generic numbers.
No, the 1.5 number includes money for daily sustanance and healthcare. Sorry for not making that more clear.
When you're young and foolish and think you're a world-beater, anything seems possible, living large on $90K, or even $60K, the world is at your feet, you're foot loose and fancy free, your hand is on the throttle. But life has a way of changing things. Throw in a kid or two, and things change drastically. Then you've got to care and plan ahead for someone other than yourself. Throw in a catastrophic illness or some other unforeseen misfortune, and you can easily be wiped out. The FR social Darwinists and ubercapitalists will say gee, that's your own fault, you didn't have insurance, or you didn't plan ahead, or you spent too much on luxuries, it's all your own fault, quit whining and go to work at McDonald's. Well, try planning ahead and saving for Alzheimer's disease, or some childhood affliction. Insurance? Cripes, the limitations on coverage will get you only a fraction of the daily costs nowadays for skilled nursing care. So you're into paying your own way for a sizable fraction of the expenses. That wipes out a lifetime of savings pretty quickly, I know from experience. And, as you say, for all of those social Darwinists who say "screw 'em", those people they screw will say "screw you" right back, with their votes.
I know here in Oregon that construction companies are MOSTLY staffed by Mexicans that cannot speak English, and fire-fighting firms that used to hire local kids straight out of college are almost entirely staffed by non-English speaking Mexicans.
I don't know if that means they are illegal or not, but c'mon...almost 100% hiring of non-English speaking Latinos in a state that has but a scant minority of Latinos?
Another example, I went into Carl's Jr. a few months ago, and every person there, from the counter to the cooks, all six of them, were female Latinas, all speaking Spanish as they worked, and the two cashiers that took my order both times spoke with such a heavy Mexican accent that I had to ask them to repeat themselves several times.
Seeing such overwhelmingly non-English speaking Latino representation in a small town that has, at most, 2% to 3% Hispanic population shows me that Latinos are specfically sought out and hired, which leads me to the conclusion that they are probably illegal aliens who are willing to work for far less than Americans with full citizenship.
Ed
Hmmm. $1.5M is arguably still the equivalent of $71,300/year, plus using the national average Social Security payment of about $13,000 means a total annual income of around $84,000/year. Plus your CFP says your house will need to be paid off. And your basic health care would be provided by Medicare.
Again, your CFP is saying you need $84,000/year (40% more than the $60K/year you are earning now) to pay for food, utilities, property taxes, automobiles, Medicare supplemental insurance, and long term care insurance.
I assume the kids will our of the house and out of college by then, so they will not be an expense.
And your CFP does not believe you can afford your mortgage payment on this income.
I find that hard to believe.
What I am missing here?
Again, this sounds like a typical CFP made up number, not an actual analysis of what your financial needs will be in retirement.
Dude, my wife and I earn far more than 60K. Read my original post. I was saying "TRYING" to plan on 60K is rough.
Then you should already be well on your way to your savings goal, and should have no problem meeting it.
And you should consider retiring to a state which provides property tax breaks to retirees. That extra $1,250 a month would be a nice benefit.
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.