|
( OT ) Follow the money
The news won't sit well on Capitol Hill, where Democrats already viewed
the prescription drug program as a gift to big drug companies and Republicans were already unhapppy about the cost. *************** I've often wondered why *anybody* would vote for a bill that prohibited (!) Medicaid from negotiating with drug companies for the lowest possible drug prices. That's a real gift to the drug companies, as well as a budget buster. |
wrote in message oups.com... The news won't sit well on Capitol Hill, where Democrats already viewed the prescription drug program as a gift to big drug companies and Republicans were already unhapppy about the cost. *************** I've often wondered why *anybody* would vote for a bill that prohibited (!) Medicaid from negotiating with drug companies for the lowest possible drug prices. That's a real gift to the drug companies, as well as a budget buster. What does your post have to do with boating Chuck? I thought just yesterday you set a rule against OT posts. Can't you live by the rules you set? |
|
JohnH wrote:
I can't disagree with that. The Army now is getting their hearing aids through the Veteran's Administration. The Army is not allowed to negotiate with the companies, but the VA is. I don't know if the same is true of drugs, but it was kind of interesting. A doctor at Walter Reed told me this last week. ********** Good lord, John. We agree on something? One of us needs to see a doctor, right away. :-) The Medicare reform gives one pause to consider the next target, Social Security. Here's the "person of foreign parentage" hiding in the woodpile with the proposed Social Security "reform": If under the Bush plan, where the money diverted from private accounts can only go to a "limited group of securities", won't the enterprises represented by those securities see their stock prices shoot over the moon? Who will pick which lucky companies the billions of diverted dollars a year will be buying up? Who will make multiple millions merely by knowing, in advance, which securities will be "approved"? Why can't we reform a system without creating a windfall for one special interest group or another? Reformed shouldn't really mean "reshaped" into a funnel, with a campaign booster's open wallet at the bottom. I'm sure plenty of previous presidents from both parties have done the same thing, but it was and remains wrong. |
|
|
John H wrote:
PS, Even Harry Reid thought the personalization of a small percent was a good idea - until Bush suggested it! *************************** I am a huge fan of private savings for retirement. Over the years I have taken advantage of 401K and other programs to build up a cash reserve for retirement. Last I looked, I think I was up to $219.00 :-) I *agree with President Bush* (bet you never thought you'd read that from me).....that individual private citizens need to be more pro-active in planning for the last 20-30% of life when they will not be working. I *disagree* with Bush that reducing Social Security taxes for workers who agree to save the money privately instead will strengthen the tottering Social Security program, or really provide an adequate retirement savings for most Americans. The time to retire is when you can sustain your current lifestyle from passive income, and without spending into the principal. Folks who do otherwise all too often wind up "greeting" at WalMart or flipping burgers. Might as well keep working at a "real" job rather than retire to a mini wage teenie bopper's gig. I think that folks in their 50's who aren't saving 20-25% of their net pay or who don't have a pipeline of income from dividends, rents, royalties, etc are likely to be disappointed with life in their mid-60s and 70's. The difference in return between private investment of 2% of wages and the return that Soc Sec wold provide on that same amount won't make a huge difference. |
wrote in message ups.com... JohnH wrote: I can't disagree with that. The Army now is getting their hearing aids through the Veteran's Administration. The Army is not allowed to negotiate with the companies, but the VA is. I don't know if the same is true of drugs, but it was kind of interesting. A doctor at Walter Reed told me this last week. ********** Good lord, John. We agree on something? One of us needs to see a doctor, right away. :-) The Medicare reform gives one pause to consider the next target, Social Security. Here's the "person of foreign parentage" hiding in the woodpile with the proposed Social Security "reform": If under the Bush plan, where the money diverted from private accounts can only go to a "limited group of securities", won't the enterprises represented by those securities see their stock prices shoot over the moon? Who will pick which lucky companies the billions of diverted dollars a year will be buying up? Who will make multiple millions merely by knowing, in advance, which securities will be "approved"? Why can't we reform a system without creating a windfall for one special interest group or another? Reformed shouldn't really mean "reshaped" into a funnel, with a campaign booster's open wallet at the bottom. I'm sure plenty of previous presidents from both parties have done the same thing, but it was and remains wrong. I can envision a very simple computer system that would randomly distribute trades amongst the various specialists (assuming we're talking stocks for the moment). An entire industry would still benefit, but not one particular firm. Don't hold your breath, though. |
|
John H wrote: On 11 Feb 2005 10:06:48 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: P.Fritz wrote: "JimH" wrote in message ... "basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... Jim, wrote: http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html Follow the money If anyone is still inclined to give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt on its budget numbers, the latest news on the cost of the Medicare prescription drug benefit should put an end to that. You remember the prescription drug benefit. That's the program the president pitched in his 2003 State of the Union address as costing $400 billion. The White House strong-armed the bill through Congress in November 2003, again assuring everyone who would listen that its cost over 10 years would not exceed a CBO estimate of $400 billion. Then, two months later, the White House revealed that the program would actually cost $534 billion over 10 years. And then, a few months after that, it became clear that the administration knew all along that the $400 billion number was fantasy. Internal administration projections put the 10-year cost at $551 billion, but the administration withheld that information from lawmakers as they debated and voted on the Medicare benefit. In March 2004, the chief actuary for Medicare revealed that the administration had threatened to fire him if he told Congress about the $551 projection. And that brings us to today's news. The administration's Medicare chief revealed Tuesday night that the prescription drug program will actually cost not $400 billion, not $434 billion, not $551 billion but $732 billion over the next 10 years. That's an increase of 83 percent over what the administration told Congress when it was selling the bill -- enough money in real dollars to cover the entire costs of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to date or to eliminate the budget deficit that the administration projects for 2009. The news won't sit well on Capitol Hill, where Democrats already viewed the prescription drug program as a gift to big drug companies and Republicans were already unhapppy about the cost. According to the New York Times, Rep. Rahm Emanuel said Tuesday that the new projection for Medicare "destroys the credibility of the Bush administration." If the White House was so far off on Medicare, Emanual asks, why should anyone believe the administration's projections for Social Security? A better question might be, why is anyone surprised? So you are against providing cheaper prescription drugs to those in need? I thought good liberals loved to see more big federal programs so the people were dependant on the government. And I am curious...how much was the federal medical insurance plan pushed by Hillary, Kennedy and Kerry going to cost us? Of course asslicker fails to mention that the change in the numbers is due to the change in the calendar years that is included in the '10 year' costs. Liebrals with half a brain admitted to that already, liebrals without a brain......like those that post on this NG......are stilll chanting the erroneous liebral talking points. Once again asslicker shows he is clueless. I wonder if he has stopped beating his wife yet? Fritz, you HONESTLY need to seek professional help for you mental problems. Where does this stuff get into your head? First, *I* didn't write the ****ing article. That in itself shows that you can't comprehend what you read. Secondly, I see that you are still acting like a little child with the name calling. Grow up. It's no wonder your wife ran off, who could stand to be around someone who acts as shallow and childish as you. Third, where to HELL has the idea that I EVER beat my wife gotten in to your head? The third one is what worries me. If that is in your head, it's purely dillusional or you are projecting, and you should seek help. Regardless of who wrote the article, you, basskisser, are responsible for its accuracy. You are the first to note that articles written by newspaper folks are 'well researched and verified'. Really? So, any article, or news piece anywhere in the world, I'm personally responsible for? That's just ignorant, John. |
P.Fritz wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... On 11 Feb 2005 10:06:48 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: P.Fritz wrote: "JimH" wrote in message ... "basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... Jim, wrote: http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html Follow the money If anyone is still inclined to give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt on its budget numbers, the latest news on the cost of the Medicare prescription drug benefit should put an end to that. You remember the prescription drug benefit. That's the program the president pitched in his 2003 State of the Union address as costing $400 billion. The White House strong-armed the bill through Congress in November 2003, again assuring everyone who would listen that its cost over 10 years would not exceed a CBO estimate of $400 billion. Then, two months later, the White House revealed that the program would actually cost $534 billion over 10 years. And then, a few months after that, it became clear that the administration knew all along that the $400 billion number was fantasy. Internal administration projections put the 10-year cost at $551 billion, but the administration withheld that information from lawmakers as they debated and voted on the Medicare benefit. In March 2004, the chief actuary for Medicare revealed that the administration had threatened to fire him if he told Congress about the $551 projection. And that brings us to today's news. The administration's Medicare chief revealed Tuesday night that the prescription drug program will actually cost not $400 billion, not $434 billion, not $551 billion but $732 billion over the next 10 years. That's an increase of 83 percent over what the administration told Congress when it was selling the bill -- enough money in real dollars to cover the entire costs of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to date or to eliminate the budget deficit that the administration projects for 2009. The news won't sit well on Capitol Hill, where Democrats already viewed the prescription drug program as a gift to big drug companies and Republicans were already unhapppy about the cost. According to the New York Times, Rep. Rahm Emanuel said Tuesday that the new projection for Medicare "destroys the credibility of the Bush administration." If the White House was so far off on Medicare, Emanual asks, why should anyone believe the administration's projections for Social Security? A better question might be, why is anyone surprised? So you are against providing cheaper prescription drugs to those in need? I thought good liberals loved to see more big federal programs so the people were dependant on the government. And I am curious...how much was the federal medical insurance plan pushed by Hillary, Kennedy and Kerry going to cost us? Of course asslicker fails to mention that the change in the numbers is due to the change in the calendar years that is included in the '10 year' costs. Liebrals with half a brain admitted to that already, liebrals without a brain......like those that post on this NG......are stilll chanting the erroneous liebral talking points. Once again asslicker shows he is clueless. I wonder if he has stopped beating his wife yet? Fritz, you HONESTLY need to seek professional help for you mental problems. Where does this stuff get into your head? First, *I* didn't write the ****ing article. That in itself shows that you can't comprehend what you read. Secondly, I see that you are still acting like a little child with the name calling. Grow up. It's no wonder your wife ran off, who could stand to be around someone who acts as shallow and childish as you. Third, where to HELL has the idea that I EVER beat my wife gotten in to your head? The third one is what worries me. If that is in your head, it's purely dillusional or you are projecting, and you should seek help. Regardless of who wrote the article, you, basskisser, are responsible for its accuracy. You are the first to note that articles written by newspaper folks are 'well researched and verified'. Asslicker isn't even a 'boy' enough to admit when he is wrong. I wonder if he has stopped beating his wife yet? Hmm, Fritz, I am more of a man than you will ever be. Let's recap, shall we? YOU frequent usenet support groups for your divorce, and to help raise your kid. YOU post lies and ennuendos about me, with NO evidence or fact to back them up. YOU post nothing here but childish name calling. Nobody likes YOU on ANY of the newsgroups I've looked at, because of your condescending, childish, and petty actions. Grow up. |
On 14 Feb 2005 05:13:17 -0800, "basskisser" wrote:
John H wrote: On 11 Feb 2005 10:06:48 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: P.Fritz wrote: "JimH" wrote in message ... "basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... Jim, wrote: http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html Follow the money If anyone is still inclined to give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt on its budget numbers, the latest news on the cost of the Medicare prescription drug benefit should put an end to that. You remember the prescription drug benefit. That's the program the president pitched in his 2003 State of the Union address as costing $400 billion. The White House strong-armed the bill through Congress in November 2003, again assuring everyone who would listen that its cost over 10 years would not exceed a CBO estimate of $400 billion. Then, two months later, the White House revealed that the program would actually cost $534 billion over 10 years. And then, a few months after that, it became clear that the administration knew all along that the $400 billion number was fantasy. Internal administration projections put the 10-year cost at $551 billion, but the administration withheld that information from lawmakers as they debated and voted on the Medicare benefit. In March 2004, the chief actuary for Medicare revealed that the administration had threatened to fire him if he told Congress about the $551 projection. And that brings us to today's news. The administration's Medicare chief revealed Tuesday night that the prescription drug program will actually cost not $400 billion, not $434 billion, not $551 billion but $732 billion over the next 10 years. That's an increase of 83 percent over what the administration told Congress when it was selling the bill -- enough money in real dollars to cover the entire costs of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to date or to eliminate the budget deficit that the administration projects for 2009. The news won't sit well on Capitol Hill, where Democrats already viewed the prescription drug program as a gift to big drug companies and Republicans were already unhapppy about the cost. According to the New York Times, Rep. Rahm Emanuel said Tuesday that the new projection for Medicare "destroys the credibility of the Bush administration." If the White House was so far off on Medicare, Emanual asks, why should anyone believe the administration's projections for Social Security? A better question might be, why is anyone surprised? So you are against providing cheaper prescription drugs to those in need? I thought good liberals loved to see more big federal programs so the people were dependant on the government. And I am curious...how much was the federal medical insurance plan pushed by Hillary, Kennedy and Kerry going to cost us? Of course asslicker fails to mention that the change in the numbers is due to the change in the calendar years that is included in the '10 year' costs. Liebrals with half a brain admitted to that already, liebrals without a brain......like those that post on this NG......are stilll chanting the erroneous liebral talking points. Once again asslicker shows he is clueless. I wonder if he has stopped beating his wife yet? Fritz, you HONESTLY need to seek professional help for you mental problems. Where does this stuff get into your head? First, *I* didn't write the ****ing article. That in itself shows that you can't comprehend what you read. Secondly, I see that you are still acting like a little child with the name calling. Grow up. It's no wonder your wife ran off, who could stand to be around someone who acts as shallow and childish as you. Third, where to HELL has the idea that I EVER beat my wife gotten in to your head? The third one is what worries me. If that is in your head, it's purely dillusional or you are projecting, and you should seek help. Regardless of who wrote the article, you, basskisser, are responsible for its accuracy. You are the first to note that articles written by newspaper folks are 'well researched and verified'. Really? So, any article, or news piece anywhere in the world, I'm personally responsible for? That's just ignorant, John. If you post it, you are responsible for it. You are the one who used the 'well researched and verified' phrase about a bull**** news article. John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
John H wrote: On 14 Feb 2005 05:13:17 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: John H wrote: On 11 Feb 2005 10:06:48 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: P.Fritz wrote: "JimH" wrote in message ... "basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... Jim, wrote: http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html Follow the money If anyone is still inclined to give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt on its budget numbers, the latest news on the cost of the Medicare prescription drug benefit should put an end to that. You remember the prescription drug benefit. That's the program the president pitched in his 2003 State of the Union address as costing $400 billion. The White House strong-armed the bill through Congress in November 2003, again assuring everyone who would listen that its cost over 10 years would not exceed a CBO estimate of $400 billion. Then, two months later, the White House revealed that the program would actually cost $534 billion over 10 years. And then, a few months after that, it became clear that the administration knew all along that the $400 billion number was fantasy. Internal administration projections put the 10-year cost at $551 billion, but the administration withheld that information from lawmakers as they debated and voted on the Medicare benefit. In March 2004, the chief actuary for Medicare revealed that the administration had threatened to fire him if he told Congress about the $551 projection. And that brings us to today's news. The administration's Medicare chief revealed Tuesday night that the prescription drug program will actually cost not $400 billion, not $434 billion, not $551 billion but $732 billion over the next 10 years. That's an increase of 83 percent over what the administration told Congress when it was selling the bill -- enough money in real dollars to cover the entire costs of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to date or to eliminate the budget deficit that the administration projects for 2009. The news won't sit well on Capitol Hill, where Democrats already viewed the prescription drug program as a gift to big drug companies and Republicans were already unhapppy about the cost. According to the New York Times, Rep. Rahm Emanuel said Tuesday that the new projection for Medicare "destroys the credibility of the Bush administration." If the White House was so far off on Medicare, Emanual asks, why should anyone believe the administration's projections for Social Security? A better question might be, why is anyone surprised? So you are against providing cheaper prescription drugs to those in need? I thought good liberals loved to see more big federal programs so the people were dependant on the government. And I am curious...how much was the federal medical insurance plan pushed by Hillary, Kennedy and Kerry going to cost us? Of course asslicker fails to mention that the change in the numbers is due to the change in the calendar years that is included in the '10 year' costs. Liebrals with half a brain admitted to that already, liebrals without a brain......like those that post on this NG......are stilll chanting the erroneous liebral talking points. Once again asslicker shows he is clueless. I wonder if he has stopped beating his wife yet? Fritz, you HONESTLY need to seek professional help for you mental problems. Where does this stuff get into your head? First, *I* didn't write the ****ing article. That in itself shows that you can't comprehend what you read. Secondly, I see that you are still acting like a little child with the name calling. Grow up. It's no wonder your wife ran off, who could stand to be around someone who acts as shallow and childish as you. Third, where to HELL has the idea that I EVER beat my wife gotten in to your head? The third one is what worries me. If that is in your head, it's purely dillusional or you are projecting, and you should seek help. Regardless of who wrote the article, you, basskisser, are responsible for its accuracy. You are the first to note that articles written by newspaper folks are 'well researched and verified'. Really? So, any article, or news piece anywhere in the world, I'm personally responsible for? That's just ignorant, John. If you post it, you are responsible for it. Really? Show me that rule. Or is it just YOUR rule? |
On 14 Feb 2005 11:40:29 -0800, "basskisser" wrote:
John H wrote: On 14 Feb 2005 05:13:17 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: John H wrote: On 11 Feb 2005 10:06:48 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: P.Fritz wrote: "JimH" wrote in message ... "basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... Jim, wrote: http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html Follow the money If anyone is still inclined to give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt on its budget numbers, the latest news on the cost of the Medicare prescription drug benefit should put an end to that. You remember the prescription drug benefit. That's the program the president pitched in his 2003 State of the Union address as costing $400 billion. The White House strong-armed the bill through Congress in November 2003, again assuring everyone who would listen that its cost over 10 years would not exceed a CBO estimate of $400 billion. Then, two months later, the White House revealed that the program would actually cost $534 billion over 10 years. And then, a few months after that, it became clear that the administration knew all along that the $400 billion number was fantasy. Internal administration projections put the 10-year cost at $551 billion, but the administration withheld that information from lawmakers as they debated and voted on the Medicare benefit. In March 2004, the chief actuary for Medicare revealed that the administration had threatened to fire him if he told Congress about the $551 projection. And that brings us to today's news. The administration's Medicare chief revealed Tuesday night that the prescription drug program will actually cost not $400 billion, not $434 billion, not $551 billion but $732 billion over the next 10 years. That's an increase of 83 percent over what the administration told Congress when it was selling the bill -- enough money in real dollars to cover the entire costs of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to date or to eliminate the budget deficit that the administration projects for 2009. The news won't sit well on Capitol Hill, where Democrats already viewed the prescription drug program as a gift to big drug companies and Republicans were already unhapppy about the cost. According to the New York Times, Rep. Rahm Emanuel said Tuesday that the new projection for Medicare "destroys the credibility of the Bush administration." If the White House was so far off on Medicare, Emanual asks, why should anyone believe the administration's projections for Social Security? A better question might be, why is anyone surprised? So you are against providing cheaper prescription drugs to those in need? I thought good liberals loved to see more big federal programs so the people were dependant on the government. And I am curious...how much was the federal medical insurance plan pushed by Hillary, Kennedy and Kerry going to cost us? Of course asslicker fails to mention that the change in the numbers is due to the change in the calendar years that is included in the '10 year' costs. Liebrals with half a brain admitted to that already, liebrals without a brain......like those that post on this NG......are stilll chanting the erroneous liebral talking points. Once again asslicker shows he is clueless. I wonder if he has stopped beating his wife yet? Fritz, you HONESTLY need to seek professional help for you mental problems. Where does this stuff get into your head? First, *I* didn't write the ****ing article. That in itself shows that you can't comprehend what you read. Secondly, I see that you are still acting like a little child with the name calling. Grow up. It's no wonder your wife ran off, who could stand to be around someone who acts as shallow and childish as you. Third, where to HELL has the idea that I EVER beat my wife gotten in to your head? The third one is what worries me. If that is in your head, it's purely dillusional or you are projecting, and you should seek help. Regardless of who wrote the article, you, basskisser, are responsible for its accuracy. You are the first to note that articles written by newspaper folks are 'well researched and verified'. Really? So, any article, or news piece anywhere in the world, I'm personally responsible for? That's just ignorant, John. If you post it, you are responsible for it. Really? Show me that rule. Or is it just YOUR rule? Let's see. Are you saying you are not responsible for your posts? Who is? No one? If no one is responsible for his posts, than anyone should be able to say whatever they wish without any accountability. True? If no accountability is to exist, then why do you continuously ask for proof? Also, you forgot to address this post: -------------------------------------------------------------- On 14 Feb 2005 09:22:47 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: John H wrote: On 11 Feb 2005 11:07:53 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...us/sept_11_faa Excerpt: The FAA received repeated warnings in the months prior to 9-11 about al-Qaida and its desire to attack airlines from April to Sept. 10, 2001, according to a secret report by Bush's 9-112 Whitewash Committee. The commission report, written last August, but kept from the American people until after the election said five security warnings mentioned al-Qaida's training for hijackings and two reports concerned suicide operations not connected to aviation. Yes, the FAA failed to act. Is that your point or are you trying to pin this on the President? Me thinks so. ;-) And the buck stops where? God. It is all his fault. Ah, you're finally getting something, but it's a tad more complex than that. It's the narrow minded mentality of the God fearing! If it weren't for the people of the world worshiping something that doesn't exist, and can't be proven to exist, the world would be a much more peaceful place. Why do you capitalize the name of something that is nonexistent? Personally? Purely out of respect of those who don't understand, and are thus offended when not doing so. Why do atheists argue so strenuously against the existence of something that doesn't exist? I've never been able to understand that. I'm glad you've admitted that you are worshiping something non-existent. Further, I don't "argue strenuously against" it. If you notice, I simply stated that the world would be a more peaceful place without it. Take a trip through history, you'll see that there have been many, many lives lost in the pursuit of one particular group trying to force their brand of religion on another. Do all the God-fearing Democrats have a narrow mentality? No, I never, ever said "all" of ANY group have a narrow mentality. But, then, you ask silly question, after question, then when all is done, and you finally understand, you'll either post "Harry is a ****ing liar" many, many times, or post many, many childish jokes. Is Kerry's narrow mentality the reason he lost the election? Nah, I don't think that his religious views, while I don't agree with him, lost him the election. There are a lot of Democrats who are believers in God. Are they all suffering from a narrow mentality? You've asked that twice. Have you been drinking? Or, does 'narrow mentality' apply only to Republicans who believe in God? Again, I never said "all" of ANY group has a "narrow mentality". And, I never said that any particular political party didn't have some people with narrow minds. John H It seems as though you have a very hard time stating what you believe. Could you show me where I said I worshipped anything? When you say, "It's the narrow minded mentality of the God fearing!" Do you really mean, "It's the narrow minded mentality of *some of* the God fearing"? Are there *any* God-fearing Democrats who are 'narrow minded'? Is 'narrow mindedness' purely an affliction of God fearing Republicans? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
John H wrote: On 14 Feb 2005 11:40:29 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: John H wrote: On 14 Feb 2005 05:13:17 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: John H wrote: On 11 Feb 2005 10:06:48 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: P.Fritz wrote: "JimH" wrote in message ... "basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... Jim, wrote: http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html Follow the money If anyone is still inclined to give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt on its budget numbers, the latest news on the cost of the Medicare prescription drug benefit should put an end to that. You remember the prescription drug benefit. That's the program the president pitched in his 2003 State of the Union address as costing $400 billion. The White House strong-armed the bill through Congress in November 2003, again assuring everyone who would listen that its cost over 10 years would not exceed a CBO estimate of $400 billion. Then, two months later, the White House revealed that the program would actually cost $534 billion over 10 years. And then, a few months after that, it became clear that the administration knew all along that the $400 billion number was fantasy. Internal administration projections put the 10-year cost at $551 billion, but the administration withheld that information from lawmakers as they debated and voted on the Medicare benefit. In March 2004, the chief actuary for Medicare revealed that the administration had threatened to fire him if he told Congress about the $551 projection. And that brings us to today's news. The administration's Medicare chief revealed Tuesday night that the prescription drug program will actually cost not $400 billion, not $434 billion, not $551 billion but $732 billion over the next 10 years. That's an increase of 83 percent over what the administration told Congress when it was selling the bill -- enough money in real dollars to cover the entire costs of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to date or to eliminate the budget deficit that the administration projects for 2009. The news won't sit well on Capitol Hill, where Democrats already viewed the prescription drug program as a gift to big drug companies and Republicans were already unhapppy about the cost. According to the New York Times, Rep. Rahm Emanuel said Tuesday that the new projection for Medicare "destroys the credibility of the Bush administration." If the White House was so far off on Medicare, Emanual asks, why should anyone believe the administration's projections for Social Security? A better question might be, why is anyone surprised? So you are against providing cheaper prescription drugs to those in need? I thought good liberals loved to see more big federal programs so the people were dependant on the government. And I am curious...how much was the federal medical insurance plan pushed by Hillary, Kennedy and Kerry going to cost us? Of course asslicker fails to mention that the change in the numbers is due to the change in the calendar years that is included in the '10 year' costs. Liebrals with half a brain admitted to that already, liebrals without a brain......like those that post on this NG......are stilll chanting the erroneous liebral talking points. Once again asslicker shows he is clueless. I wonder if he has stopped beating his wife yet? Fritz, you HONESTLY need to seek professional help for you mental problems. Where does this stuff get into your head? First, *I* didn't write the ****ing article. That in itself shows that you can't comprehend what you read. Secondly, I see that you are still acting like a little child with the name calling. Grow up. It's no wonder your wife ran off, who could stand to be around someone who acts as shallow and childish as you. Third, where to HELL has the idea that I EVER beat my wife gotten in to your head? The third one is what worries me. If that is in your head, it's purely dillusional or you are projecting, and you should seek help. Regardless of who wrote the article, you, basskisser, are responsible for its accuracy. You are the first to note that articles written by newspaper folks are 'well researched and verified'. Really? So, any article, or news piece anywhere in the world, I'm personally responsible for? That's just ignorant, John. If you post it, you are responsible for it. Really? Show me that rule. Or is it just YOUR rule? Let's see. Are you saying you are not responsible for your posts? Who is? No one? If no one is responsible for his posts, than anyone should be able to say whatever they wish without any accountability. True? If no accountability is to exist, then why do you continuously ask for proof? Also, you forgot to address this post: -------------------------------------------------------------- On 14 Feb 2005 09:22:47 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: John H wrote: On 11 Feb 2005 11:07:53 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...us/sept_11_faa Excerpt: The FAA received repeated warnings in the months prior to 9-11 about al-Qaida and its desire to attack airlines from April to Sept. 10, 2001, according to a secret report by Bush's 9-112 Whitewash Committee. The commission report, written last August, but kept from the American people until after the election said five security warnings mentioned al-Qaida's training for hijackings and two reports concerned suicide operations not connected to aviation. Yes, the FAA failed to act. Is that your point or are you trying to pin this on the President? Me thinks so. ;-) And the buck stops where? God. It is all his fault. Ah, you're finally getting something, but it's a tad more complex than that. It's the narrow minded mentality of the God fearing! If it weren't for the people of the world worshiping something that doesn't exist, and can't be proven to exist, the world would be a much more peaceful place. Why do you capitalize the name of something that is nonexistent? Personally? Purely out of respect of those who don't understand, and are thus offended when not doing so. Why do atheists argue so strenuously against the existence of something that doesn't exist? I've never been able to understand that. I'm glad you've admitted that you are worshiping something non-existent. Further, I don't "argue strenuously against" it. If you notice, I simply stated that the world would be a more peaceful place without it. Take a trip through history, you'll see that there have been many, many lives lost in the pursuit of one particular group trying to force their brand of religion on another. Do all the God-fearing Democrats have a narrow mentality? No, I never, ever said "all" of ANY group have a narrow mentality. But, then, you ask silly question, after question, then when all is done, and you finally understand, you'll either post "Harry is a ****ing liar" many, many times, or post many, many childish jokes. Is Kerry's narrow mentality the reason he lost the election? Nah, I don't think that his religious views, while I don't agree with him, lost him the election. There are a lot of Democrats who are believers in God. Are they all suffering from a narrow mentality? You've asked that twice. Have you been drinking? Or, does 'narrow mentality' apply only to Republicans who believe in God? Again, I never said "all" of ANY group has a "narrow mentality". And, I never said that any particular political party didn't have some people with narrow minds. John H It seems as though you have a very hard time stating what you believe. Could you show me where I said I worshipped anything? When you say, "It's the narrow minded mentality of the God fearing!" Do you really mean, "It's the narrow minded mentality of *some of* the God fearing"? Are there *any* God-fearing Democrats who are 'narrow minded'? Is 'narrow mindedness' purely an affliction of God fearing Republicans? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John H My god, you just can't comprehend what you read, can you? |
JohnH wrote:
Remember, the plan is designed not for people in their 50's, but for a much younger population. I wish I had been investing 3% of my ss money into stock funds since I began paying ss taxes as 17! *********************** And precisely what portion of the Social Security System, as it currently exists, prevented you from budgeting 3% of your income for savings or investment? Did the rest of your expenses and luxuries consume all of your disposable income? If you didn't invest 3%, was that the government's fault? (Careful, you'll start to sound like your own stereotype of a Democrat) :-) I was thinking of how tough it must be for people who rely on the "accumulation" model to retire these days. It's different for people who establish passive income streams, but with a retirement "nest egg" invested in a relatively safe bond fund, etc, wouldn't it take about $2.5- $3 million in cash to spin off $1500-2000 a week at current interest rates? It takes at least that kind of income to sustain a middle class lifestyle- and the typical couple earning enough to accumulate liquid assets or savings of $3 million may be used to living at something above middle class. (High real estate values have created a false sense of security for a lot of people. In many parts of the country, million-dollar homes are becoming common- and are nothing all that exceptional. People conclude they've got a million bucks as they pay off the mortgage- and maybe they do if they're willing to cash out and move to a single wide trailer someplace in the Dakotas. For everybody else, a million of their bucks are stuck in a house.) I'm not certain that it's reasonable to expect the average couple to accumulate $3 million in liquid assets, including compoounded interest, through the investment of 3% of average wages. People retiring today from an annual salary of $100,000 usually started working in the late 50's and early 60's when one tenth of that amount would have been considered a very high wage indeed. $500 a month was pretty common money back then. Compounding works most dramatically on money saved or invested during the earliest years of a working career, and even if a super thrifty couple managed to save 5-7% in those days, the sum that has been compounded started off as too small a number to (a few hundred bucks) to be worth as much as needed today. New American employment model might be this: Rather than work to earn a pension that insures you can quit work but maintain your lifestyle, work toward developing a career that you truly enjoy and is personally fulfilling. When the day comes when you turn 55, 60, 65 or whatever and your frinds ask if you're going to sit back and clip coupons from here to the finish line, you can look them in the eye and say "I couldn't imagine giving up my job! I enjoy it far too much to consider quitting." IMO, that may be the secret to a satisfactory old age..........(but it might be nice to have the financial resources to get by if it became medically impossible to continue working) |
wrote in message ups.com... snip New American employment model might be this: Rather than work to earn a pension that insures you can quit work but maintain your lifestyle, work toward developing a career that you truly enjoy and is personally fulfilling. When the day comes when you turn 55, 60, 65 or whatever and your frinds ask if you're going to sit back and clip coupons from here to the finish line, you can look them in the eye and say "I couldn't imagine giving up my job! I enjoy it far too much to consider quitting." IMO, that may be the secret to a satisfactory old age..........(but it might be nice to have the financial resources to get by if it became medically impossible to continue working) Amen! Funny...we keep getting told up here that we will need x number of new workers to come and support the system, but the reality is...few jobs are available. With so many young people desperate for a decent paying job there aren't a lot of part time jobs for retired folk who might like to supplement pensions. |
|
On 15 Feb 2005 05:25:24 -0800, "basskisser" wrote:
John H wrote: On 14 Feb 2005 11:40:29 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: John H wrote: On 14 Feb 2005 05:13:17 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: John H wrote: On 11 Feb 2005 10:06:48 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: P.Fritz wrote: "JimH" wrote in message ... "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... Jim, wrote: http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html Follow the money If anyone is still inclined to give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt on its budget numbers, the latest news on the cost of the Medicare prescription drug benefit should put an end to that. You remember the prescription drug benefit. That's the program the president pitched in his 2003 State of the Union address as costing $400 billion. The White House strong-armed the bill through Congress in November 2003, again assuring everyone who would listen that its cost over 10 years would not exceed a CBO estimate of $400 billion. Then, two months later, the White House revealed that the program would actually cost $534 billion over 10 years. And then, a few months after that, it became clear that the administration knew all along that the $400 billion number was fantasy. Internal administration projections put the 10-year cost at $551 billion, but the administration withheld that information from lawmakers as they debated and voted on the Medicare benefit. In March 2004, the chief actuary for Medicare revealed that the administration had threatened to fire him if he told Congress about the $551 projection. And that brings us to today's news. The administration's Medicare chief revealed Tuesday night that the prescription drug program will actually cost not $400 billion, not $434 billion, not $551 billion but $732 billion over the next 10 years. That's an increase of 83 percent over what the administration told Congress when it was selling the bill -- enough money in real dollars to cover the entire costs of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to date or to eliminate the budget deficit that the administration projects for 2009. The news won't sit well on Capitol Hill, where Democrats already viewed the prescription drug program as a gift to big drug companies and Republicans were already unhapppy about the cost. According to the New York Times, Rep. Rahm Emanuel said Tuesday that the new projection for Medicare "destroys the credibility of the Bush administration." If the White House was so far off on Medicare, Emanual asks, why should anyone believe the administration's projections for Social Security? A better question might be, why is anyone surprised? So you are against providing cheaper prescription drugs to those in need? I thought good liberals loved to see more big federal programs so the people were dependant on the government. And I am curious...how much was the federal medical insurance plan pushed by Hillary, Kennedy and Kerry going to cost us? Of course asslicker fails to mention that the change in the numbers is due to the change in the calendar years that is included in the '10 year' costs. Liebrals with half a brain admitted to that already, liebrals without a brain......like those that post on this NG......are stilll chanting the erroneous liebral talking points. Once again asslicker shows he is clueless. I wonder if he has stopped beating his wife yet? Fritz, you HONESTLY need to seek professional help for you mental problems. Where does this stuff get into your head? First, *I* didn't write the ****ing article. That in itself shows that you can't comprehend what you read. Secondly, I see that you are still acting like a little child with the name calling. Grow up. It's no wonder your wife ran off, who could stand to be around someone who acts as shallow and childish as you. Third, where to HELL has the idea that I EVER beat my wife gotten in to your head? The third one is what worries me. If that is in your head, it's purely dillusional or you are projecting, and you should seek help. Regardless of who wrote the article, you, basskisser, are responsible for its accuracy. You are the first to note that articles written by newspaper folks are 'well researched and verified'. Really? So, any article, or news piece anywhere in the world, I'm personally responsible for? That's just ignorant, John. If you post it, you are responsible for it. Really? Show me that rule. Or is it just YOUR rule? Let's see. Are you saying you are not responsible for your posts? Who is? No one? If no one is responsible for his posts, than anyone should be able to say whatever they wish without any accountability. True? If no accountability is to exist, then why do you continuously ask for proof? Also, you forgot to address this post: -------------------------------------------------------------- On 14 Feb 2005 09:22:47 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: John H wrote: On 11 Feb 2005 11:07:53 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...us/sept_11_faa Excerpt: The FAA received repeated warnings in the months prior to 9-11 about al-Qaida and its desire to attack airlines from April to Sept. 10, 2001, according to a secret report by Bush's 9-112 Whitewash Committee. The commission report, written last August, but kept from the American people until after the election said five security warnings mentioned al-Qaida's training for hijackings and two reports concerned suicide operations not connected to aviation. Yes, the FAA failed to act. Is that your point or are you trying to pin this on the President? Me thinks so. ;-) And the buck stops where? God. It is all his fault. Ah, you're finally getting something, but it's a tad more complex than that. It's the narrow minded mentality of the God fearing! If it weren't for the people of the world worshiping something that doesn't exist, and can't be proven to exist, the world would be a much more peaceful place. Why do you capitalize the name of something that is nonexistent? Personally? Purely out of respect of those who don't understand, and are thus offended when not doing so. Why do atheists argue so strenuously against the existence of something that doesn't exist? I've never been able to understand that. I'm glad you've admitted that you are worshiping something non-existent. Further, I don't "argue strenuously against" it. If you notice, I simply stated that the world would be a more peaceful place without it. Take a trip through history, you'll see that there have been many, many lives lost in the pursuit of one particular group trying to force their brand of religion on another. Do all the God-fearing Democrats have a narrow mentality? No, I never, ever said "all" of ANY group have a narrow mentality. But, then, you ask silly question, after question, then when all is done, and you finally understand, you'll either post "Harry is a ****ing liar" many, many times, or post many, many childish jokes. Is Kerry's narrow mentality the reason he lost the election? Nah, I don't think that his religious views, while I don't agree with him, lost him the election. There are a lot of Democrats who are believers in God. Are they all suffering from a narrow mentality? You've asked that twice. Have you been drinking? Or, does 'narrow mentality' apply only to Republicans who believe in God? Again, I never said "all" of ANY group has a "narrow mentality". And, I never said that any particular political party didn't have some people with narrow minds. John H It seems as though you have a very hard time stating what you believe. Could you show me where I said I worshipped anything? When you say, "It's the narrow minded mentality of the God fearing!" Do you really mean, "It's the narrow minded mentality of *some of* the God fearing"? Are there *any* God-fearing Democrats who are 'narrow minded'? Is 'narrow mindedness' purely an affliction of God fearing Republicans? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John H My god, you just can't comprehend what you read, can you? Well, I seem to have a problem comprehending some of what you've written, and I'm sure it's my fault. You are, after all, a great writer. But, you didn't answer my question with your comment. Where did I say I worshipped anything? Are there *any* God-fearing Democrats who are 'narrow minded'? Is 'narrow mindedness purely an affliction of God fearing Republicans? Have you ever noticed that when you make a statement that is questioned, you often revert to something like, "My god, you just can't comprehend what you read, can you?" John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
"John H" wrote in message ... On 15 Feb 2005 05:25:24 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: John H wrote: On 14 Feb 2005 11:40:29 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: John H wrote: On 14 Feb 2005 05:13:17 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: John H wrote: On 11 Feb 2005 10:06:48 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: P.Fritz wrote: "JimH" wrote in message ... "basskisser" wrote in message roups.com... Jim, wrote: http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html Follow the money If anyone is still inclined to give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt on its budget numbers, the latest news on the cost of the Medicare prescription drug benefit should put an end to that. You remember the prescription drug benefit. That's the program the president pitched in his 2003 State of the Union address as costing $400 billion. The White House strong-armed the bill through Congress in November 2003, again assuring everyone who would listen that its cost over 10 years would not exceed a CBO estimate of $400 billion. Then, two months later, the White House revealed that the program would actually cost $534 billion over 10 years. And then, a few months after that, it became clear that the administration knew all along that the $400 billion number was fantasy. Internal administration projections put the 10-year cost at $551 billion, but the administration withheld that information from lawmakers as they debated and voted on the Medicare benefit. In March 2004, the chief actuary for Medicare revealed that the administration had threatened to fire him if he told Congress about the $551 projection. And that brings us to today's news. The administration's Medicare chief revealed Tuesday night that the prescription drug program will actually cost not $400 billion, not $434 billion, not $551 billion but $732 billion over the next 10 years. That's an increase of 83 percent over what the administration told Congress when it was selling the bill -- enough money in real dollars to cover the entire costs of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to date or to eliminate the budget deficit that the administration projects for 2009. The news won't sit well on Capitol Hill, where Democrats already viewed the prescription drug program as a gift to big drug companies and Republicans were already unhapppy about the cost. According to the New York Times, Rep. Rahm Emanuel said Tuesday that the new projection for Medicare "destroys the credibility of the Bush administration." If the White House was so far off on Medicare, Emanual asks, why should anyone believe the administration's projections for Social Security? A better question might be, why is anyone surprised? So you are against providing cheaper prescription drugs to those in need? I thought good liberals loved to see more big federal programs so the people were dependant on the government. And I am curious...how much was the federal medical insurance plan pushed by Hillary, Kennedy and Kerry going to cost us? Of course asslicker fails to mention that the change in the numbers is due to the change in the calendar years that is included in the '10 year' costs. Liebrals with half a brain admitted to that already, liebrals without a brain......like those that post on this NG......are stilll chanting the erroneous liebral talking points. Once again asslicker shows he is clueless. I wonder if he has stopped beating his wife yet? Fritz, you HONESTLY need to seek professional help for you mental problems. Where does this stuff get into your head? First, *I* didn't write the ****ing article. That in itself shows that you can't comprehend what you read. Secondly, I see that you are still acting like a little child with the name calling. Grow up. It's no wonder your wife ran off, who could stand to be around someone who acts as shallow and childish as you. Third, where to HELL has the idea that I EVER beat my wife gotten in to your head? The third one is what worries me. If that is in your head, it's purely dillusional or you are projecting, and you should seek help. Regardless of who wrote the article, you, basskisser, are responsible for its accuracy. You are the first to note that articles written by newspaper folks are 'well researched and verified'. Really? So, any article, or news piece anywhere in the world, I'm personally responsible for? That's just ignorant, John. If you post it, you are responsible for it. Really? Show me that rule. Or is it just YOUR rule? Let's see. Are you saying you are not responsible for your posts? Who is? No one? If no one is responsible for his posts, than anyone should be able to say whatever they wish without any accountability. True? If no accountability is to exist, then why do you continuously ask for proof? Also, you forgot to address this post: -------------------------------------------------------------- On 14 Feb 2005 09:22:47 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: John H wrote: On 11 Feb 2005 11:07:53 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...us/sept_11_faa Excerpt: The FAA received repeated warnings in the months prior to 9-11 about al-Qaida and its desire to attack airlines from April to Sept. 10, 2001, according to a secret report by Bush's 9-112 Whitewash Committee. The commission report, written last August, but kept from the American people until after the election said five security warnings mentioned al-Qaida's training for hijackings and two reports concerned suicide operations not connected to aviation. Yes, the FAA failed to act. Is that your point or are you trying to pin this on the President? Me thinks so. ;-) And the buck stops where? God. It is all his fault. Ah, you're finally getting something, but it's a tad more complex than that. It's the narrow minded mentality of the God fearing! If it weren't for the people of the world worshiping something that doesn't exist, and can't be proven to exist, the world would be a much more peaceful place. Why do you capitalize the name of something that is nonexistent? Personally? Purely out of respect of those who don't understand, and are thus offended when not doing so. Why do atheists argue so strenuously against the existence of something that doesn't exist? I've never been able to understand that. I'm glad you've admitted that you are worshiping something non-existent. Further, I don't "argue strenuously against" it. If you notice, I simply stated that the world would be a more peaceful place without it. Take a trip through history, you'll see that there have been many, many lives lost in the pursuit of one particular group trying to force their brand of religion on another. Do all the God-fearing Democrats have a narrow mentality? No, I never, ever said "all" of ANY group have a narrow mentality. But, then, you ask silly question, after question, then when all is done, and you finally understand, you'll either post "Harry is a ****ing liar" many, many times, or post many, many childish jokes. Is Kerry's narrow mentality the reason he lost the election? Nah, I don't think that his religious views, while I don't agree with him, lost him the election. There are a lot of Democrats who are believers in God. Are they all suffering from a narrow mentality? You've asked that twice. Have you been drinking? Or, does 'narrow mentality' apply only to Republicans who believe in God? Again, I never said "all" of ANY group has a "narrow mentality". And, I never said that any particular political party didn't have some people with narrow minds. John H It seems as though you have a very hard time stating what you believe. Could you show me where I said I worshipped anything? When you say, "It's the narrow minded mentality of the God fearing!" Do you really mean, "It's the narrow minded mentality of *some of* the God fearing"? Are there *any* God-fearing Democrats who are 'narrow minded'? Is 'narrow mindedness' purely an affliction of God fearing Republicans? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John H My god, you just can't comprehend what you read, can you? Well, I seem to have a problem comprehending some of what you've written, and I'm sure it's my fault. You are, after all, a great writer. But, you didn't answer my question with your comment. Where did I say I worshipped anything? Are there *any* God-fearing Democrats who are 'narrow minded'? Is 'narrow mindedness purely an affliction of God fearing Republicans? Have you ever noticed that when you make a statement that is questioned, you often revert to something like, "My god, you just can't comprehend what you read, can you?" His FAS is acting up. John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:01:18 -0500, "P.Fritz"
wrote: "John H" wrote in message .. . On 15 Feb 2005 09:41:15 -0800, wrote: JohnH wrote: Remember, the plan is designed not for people in their 50's, but for a much younger population. I wish I had been investing 3% of my ss money into stock funds since I began paying ss taxes as 17! *********************** And precisely what portion of the Social Security System, as it currently exists, prevented you from budgeting 3% of your income for savings or investment? Absolutely nothing in the current system prevented me from budgeting any amount of my net income for savings or investment. Did the rest of your expenses and luxuries consume all of your disposable income? If you didn't invest 3%, was that the government's fault? (Careful, you'll start to sound like your own stereotype of a Democrat) :-) No and no. I was thinking of how tough it must be for people who rely on the "accumulation" model to retire these days. It's different for people who establish passive income streams, but with a retirement "nest egg" invested in a relatively safe bond fund, etc, wouldn't it take about $2.5- $3 million in cash to spin off $1500-2000 a week at current interest rates? It takes at least that kind of income to sustain a middle class lifestyle- and the typical couple earning enough to accumulate liquid assets or savings of $3 million may be used to living at something above middle class. I don't think anyone has stated the 3% investment would *ever* provide a $1500 income stream. Where do you come up with this stuff? (High real estate values have created a false sense of security for a lot of people. In many parts of the country, million-dollar homes are becoming common- and are nothing all that exceptional. People conclude they've got a million bucks as they pay off the mortgage- and maybe they do if they're willing to cash out and move to a single wide trailer someplace in the Dakotas. For everybody else, a million of their bucks are stuck in a house.) What, pray tell, does anything in the above three paragraphs have to do with the voluntary investment of 3% of one's social security withholdings? I'm not certain that it's reasonable to expect the average couple to accumulate $3 million in liquid assets, including compoounded interest, through the investment of 3% of average wages. I'd be fairly certain it would be unreasonable to hold such an expectation. What has that to do with the question at hand? People retiring today from an annual salary of $100,000 usually started working in the late 50's and early 60's when one tenth of that amount would have been considered a very high wage indeed. $500 a month was pretty common money back then. Compounding works most dramatically on money saved or invested during the earliest years of a working career, and even if a super thrifty couple managed to save 5-7% in those days, the sum that has been compounded started off as too small a number to (a few hundred bucks) to be worth as much as needed today. Compounding is the key, for sure. If I were an 18 year-old now, I'd love to be able to have a choice of investing in the market or letting the government 'invest' my social security withholding, especially knowing I'd be able to pass it on if I die. New American employment model might be this: Rather than work to earn a pension that insures you can quit work but maintain your lifestyle, work toward developing a career that you truly enjoy and is personally fulfilling. When the day comes when you turn 55, 60, 65 or whatever and your frinds ask if you're going to sit back and clip coupons from here to the finish line, you can look them in the eye and say "I couldn't imagine giving up my job! I enjoy it far too much to consider quitting." IMO, that may be the secret to a satisfactory old age..........(but it might be nice to have the financial resources to get by if it became medically impossible to continue working) That last paragraph is nicely done. Of course, it has no bearing on the voluntary investment of 3% of social security withholdings. A lot of words, Chuck, nicely written and all, but with no bearing on the question. His whole premise is flawed, since it is based on generating an income stream solely from investment growth and not from reducing the principal. The gross savings required to have a 2k a week retirement is significantly less if you withdraw from the principal as well..... John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes The issue was the 3% voluntary investment of social security withholdings. It had nothing to do with all the other tangents Chuck brought into it. You are right, of course. John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
"John H" wrote in message ... On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:01:18 -0500, "P.Fritz" wrote: "John H" wrote in message . .. On 15 Feb 2005 09:41:15 -0800, wrote: JohnH wrote: Remember, the plan is designed not for people in their 50's, but for a much younger population. I wish I had been investing 3% of my ss money into stock funds since I began paying ss taxes as 17! *********************** And precisely what portion of the Social Security System, as it currently exists, prevented you from budgeting 3% of your income for savings or investment? Absolutely nothing in the current system prevented me from budgeting any amount of my net income for savings or investment. Did the rest of your expenses and luxuries consume all of your disposable income? If you didn't invest 3%, was that the government's fault? (Careful, you'll start to sound like your own stereotype of a Democrat) :-) No and no. I was thinking of how tough it must be for people who rely on the "accumulation" model to retire these days. It's different for people who establish passive income streams, but with a retirement "nest egg" invested in a relatively safe bond fund, etc, wouldn't it take about $2.5- $3 million in cash to spin off $1500-2000 a week at current interest rates? It takes at least that kind of income to sustain a middle class lifestyle- and the typical couple earning enough to accumulate liquid assets or savings of $3 million may be used to living at something above middle class. I don't think anyone has stated the 3% investment would *ever* provide a $1500 income stream. Where do you come up with this stuff? (High real estate values have created a false sense of security for a lot of people. In many parts of the country, million-dollar homes are becoming common- and are nothing all that exceptional. People conclude they've got a million bucks as they pay off the mortgage- and maybe they do if they're willing to cash out and move to a single wide trailer someplace in the Dakotas. For everybody else, a million of their bucks are stuck in a house.) What, pray tell, does anything in the above three paragraphs have to do with the voluntary investment of 3% of one's social security withholdings? I'm not certain that it's reasonable to expect the average couple to accumulate $3 million in liquid assets, including compoounded interest, through the investment of 3% of average wages. I'd be fairly certain it would be unreasonable to hold such an expectation. What has that to do with the question at hand? People retiring today from an annual salary of $100,000 usually started working in the late 50's and early 60's when one tenth of that amount would have been considered a very high wage indeed. $500 a month was pretty common money back then. Compounding works most dramatically on money saved or invested during the earliest years of a working career, and even if a super thrifty couple managed to save 5-7% in those days, the sum that has been compounded started off as too small a number to (a few hundred bucks) to be worth as much as needed today. Compounding is the key, for sure. If I were an 18 year-old now, I'd love to be able to have a choice of investing in the market or letting the government 'invest' my social security withholding, especially knowing I'd be able to pass it on if I die. New American employment model might be this: Rather than work to earn a pension that insures you can quit work but maintain your lifestyle, work toward developing a career that you truly enjoy and is personally fulfilling. When the day comes when you turn 55, 60, 65 or whatever and your frinds ask if you're going to sit back and clip coupons from here to the finish line, you can look them in the eye and say "I couldn't imagine giving up my job! I enjoy it far too much to consider quitting." IMO, that may be the secret to a satisfactory old age..........(but it might be nice to have the financial resources to get by if it became medically impossible to continue working) That last paragraph is nicely done. Of course, it has no bearing on the voluntary investment of 3% of social security withholdings. A lot of words, Chuck, nicely written and all, but with no bearing on the question. His whole premise is flawed, since it is based on generating an income stream solely from investment growth and not from reducing the principal. The gross savings required to have a 2k a week retirement is significantly less if you withdraw from the principal as well..... John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes The issue was the 3% voluntary investment of social security withholdings. It had nothing to do with all the other tangents Chuck brought into it. The liebrals are too afraid people may be able to take care of themselves without the 'big daddy guvmint" they strive for. You are right, of course. John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
John H wrote:
That last paragraph is nicely done. Of course, it has no bearing on the voluntary investment of 3% of social security withholdings. A lot of words, Chuck, nicely written and all, but with no bearing on the question. ****** Certainly it bears on the question. Why must one be allowed to reduce the contribution to a fund that is designed to sustain, widows, orphans, the disabled, and the indigent elderly in order to invest 3, 4, 5, 10, 15, or 20% of an income on Wall Street? You yourself said that SS taxes did *not* prevent you from investing amounts beyond those impounded by the govt. for social security. |
P.Fritz squealed:
The liebrals are too afraid people may be able to take care of themselves without the 'big daddy guvmint" they strive for. ************************************************* This liberal thinks you darn well better plan to take care of yourself, and doesn't need "Big Daddy" government to give me a 3% "allowance" to invest.Social Security supports widows, orphans, the disabled, and the indigent elderly. If I need to turn my financial back on that segment of society in order to save for retirement, there's something screwed up (and in a major way) with my personal finances. Did you know that if they took the "cap" off of Social Security earnings, the rate could be reduced from about 15% at present (split between employer/employee or paid as self employment tax) to something closer to 6-7%? There you go, several percent saved by both employee and employer- more for investment. :-) |
P.Fritz observed:
His whole premise is flawed, since it is based on generating an income stream solely from investment growth and not from reducing the principal. The gross savings required to have a 2k a week retirement is significantly less if you withdraw from the principal as well..... ************************************************** ******* Never, ever, spend the principal. The idea is to leave that to your kids, so they can blow in on wild parties, European vacations, cars, yachts, mistresses, and caviar after your demise. :-) |
"P.Fritz" wrote in message
... Have you ever noticed that when you make a statement that is questioned, you often revert to something like, "My god, you just can't comprehend what you read, can you?" His FAS is acting up. The day wouldn't be complete unless "Me Too" Fritz didn't report for duty. |
|
|
|
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 08:35:33 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:
On 15 Feb 2005 19:13:10 -0800, wrote: John H wrote: That last paragraph is nicely done. Of course, it has no bearing on the voluntary investment of 3% of social security withholdings. A lot of words, Chuck, nicely written and all, but with no bearing on the question. ****** Certainly it bears on the question. Why must one be allowed to reduce the contribution to a fund that is designed to sustain, widows, orphans, the disabled, and the indigent elderly in order to invest 3, 4, 5, 10, 15, or 20% of an income on Wall Street? That's one of the problems. SS cannot continue to support all of those people on the amount that it brings in. SS is primarily a retirement fund, and as such it offers a poor return on investment. Yours and my money would offer a much better return if placed in a managed investment fund. Widows would get the benefits of what was earned in an individual's fund. Maybe SS needs to be split into two parts. One part saving for eventual retirement, and the other an "insurance" policy that protects against disability. You yourself said that SS taxes did *not* prevent you from investing amounts beyond those impounded by the govt. for social security. The thing is, if there were no MANDATORY SS, there would be people who would work their whole life, and spend 100% of what they earn, and then when they get old, they'd have nothing to show for it. I realize that this is a somewhat socialistic opinion, but the simple facts are that SOME people do not have enough personal responsibility to plan for their "retirement". That's why the mandatory SS program was created. But if SS were reformed to slowly shift from the current "no interest" account to one which does earn compound interest, the potential is there for a greater return on the investment. Remember that there is no real "guarantee" that SS will be there when we all retire. SS could be eliminated by the stroke of a pen, so the argument that SS is "guaranteed" is naive. I recall that you, yourself, offered up a very similar plan to slowly migrate SS over to personal interest bearing accounts some time back. I agreed that this was the best chance of reforming the system. Are you no longer a believer in that plan? Dave Harry Reid did the same thing. I wonder is this is due to the idea or the presenter. John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
"John H" wrote in message ... On 15 Feb 2005 19:22:13 -0800, wrote: P.Fritz squealed: The liebrals are too afraid people may be able to take care of themselves without the 'big daddy guvmint" they strive for. ************************************************ * This liberal thinks you darn well better plan to take care of yourself, and doesn't need "Big Daddy" government to give me a 3% "allowance" to invest.Social Security supports widows, orphans, the disabled, and the indigent elderly. If I need to turn my financial back on that segment of society in order to save for retirement, there's something screwed up (and in a major way) with my personal finances. Did you know that if they took the "cap" off of Social Security earnings, the rate could be reduced from about 15% at present (split between employer/employee or paid as self employment tax) to something closer to 6-7%? There you go, several percent saved by both employee and employer- more for investment. :-) How is allowing the voluntary investment of 3% of an 18 year-old's withholdings going to hurt widows, orphans, the disabled, or the indigent elderly? Come on, Chuck. You're spreading the same kind of panic one would expect from Kennedy or Pelosi, or Reid (who thought this was a good idea a few years ago - wonder what changed his mind?). Of course he conviently forgets that congress has no constitutional authorization to establish a social security system in the first place. WRT the cap of SS earnings, once again liebrals used flawed static thinking...........anybody with any sense at all knows that removig the cap will result in a movement from "wages" to another source of income......like dividends to avoid the tax increase. John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
John H wrote:
From whence came that tidbit? What percent of the current withholdings goes to support the WODI's you mention above? Remember, if 3% is personalized, the other 97% is still there to provide the same support. If the parents of the WODI had been allowed to invest some of their SS money in a decent manner and pass it on when they died, perhaps the indigent wouldn't be so indigent. ***************** I thought you were a math whiz. The employee's SS contribution is about 7.5% of wages, matched by the employer. If you take 3% of the employee wages out of the SS system, you are left with about 75% of the money, not 97%. We can't break faith with all of the people who have, foolishly, planned on SS for old age income. |
|
John wrote:
The 4% (not 3% as I'd thought) is applied to their *tax*, not their income. ******************* Four pecent of 7.5%? Isn't that about one third of a percent of income? In other words, a young worker pulling in $50,000 a year would put away $150.00 per year toward retirement? Better check your information. If true, tell them not to spend that princely, compounded sum in any one place. :-) |
|
John H wrote: On 16 Feb 2005 09:16:20 -0800, wrote: John wrote: The 4% (not 3% as I'd thought) is applied to their *tax*, not their income. ******************* Four pecent of 7.5%? Isn't that about one third of a percent of income? In other words, a young worker pulling in $50,000 a year would put away $150.00 per year toward retirement? Better check your information. If true, tell them not to spend that princely, compounded sum in any one place. :-) Well, I just read another article that says, "...up to thirty percent of their payroll tax." You're correct, 3% of the tax itself wouldn't amount to much. The thirty percent of the tax seems much more realistic. Now it's an even better idea! John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes ************************ I'm not so sure. I've been investing for retirement for decades. My situation is different from a lot of people as some of my income ($10-20 a week) will continue perpetually, whether I "work" or not, but I have taken advantage of a number of tax saving retirement plans *already in existence* to accumulate the couple of hundred bucks I have so far managed to save for my old age. I've got or have had Ira this, Ira that, Roth Iras, Sep Iras- hell, I think I've probably got an Ira Hayes somewhere among those accounts. :-) My CPA (and wife) does my taxes, but on some of these accounts I believe I defer the income tax on any money put in. Even in my impoverished bracket, that amounts to a lot more than 3-4% of my income. Some of the accounts have provisions where the money that went in initially was taxed, but all the earnings are tax exempt or tax deferred until I draw out the money when I get old (er) and theoretically will be earning less (hardly possible) and in a lower tax bracket. Some of these accounts are too risky. One of my accounts is with a major brokerage firm. The last time the market imploded, I decided to move some of the money into a real property investment here in Seattle. (I bought part of a warehouse down by Safeco Field. I believe I own one doorknob and half a broom closet as my share). Getting the paperwork squared away to where I was allowed to move some money out of stocks and into a less volatile investment was a serious challenge. One of the problems with a retirement portfolio that is heavily invested in securities is that if the market decides to go into a corrective "nosedive" just about the time a worker is ready to quit working, it can have a serious effect on the type of retirement lifestyle available to the worker. The government has been giving tax relief to people establishing individual retirement accounts for decades. That is a good idea, and it certainly isn't something that Bush dreamed up. Diverting 25% of SS impounds into the stock market, when the SS system is already in trouble, may not be wise. It certainly isn't the least bit necessary, as there are already a number of tax sheltered accounts and schemes in place through which an American can establish a personal retirement savings. Social Security: Don't count on it, but don't take it away from those who are truly in need. |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:49 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com