| Author | Message | ||
     ina Citizen Username: Ina Post Number: 182 Registered: 6-2001 |
An excerpt from http://www.newsday.com/business/custom/retirement/ny-saul4157736feb26,0,4207141. column?coll=ny-retirement-headlines When the president was asked by an elderly woman in Tampa, Fla., on Feb. 4 how private accounts would help preserve Social Security, here was his reply, according to a White House transcript: "Because the all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how the benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. "There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be or closer delivered to what has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? "It's kind of muddled. Look there's a series of things that cause the like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. "Some have suggested that we calculate the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those if that growth is affected, it will help on the red." For the love of god, he sounds like a high school freshman who stayed up drinking all night instead of studying for his social studies test. No offence to high school freshmen. | ||
| Mark Fuhrman Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 1409 Registered: 9-2001  |
War is Peace. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 3261 Registered: 8-2003 |
Not as smooth as I'd like, but I understand what he's saying. Do you? | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 5853 Registered: 1-2003  |
I don't. And I tried. Aren't his puppeteers embarrassed? | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 3262 Registered: 8-2003 |
Really, Tom. If you're being honest, I'm surprised. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 1101 Registered: 8-2003  |
what he's saying is that he really doesn't want to answer the question. he's just not as smooth at it as other politicians. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 5854 Registered: 1-2003 |
I'm looking for verbs in Bush's quotes that correlate to proposed actions in what SS would do in the future, according to his proposals. Can you cite some such verbs? | ||
| Mark Fuhrman Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 1412 Registered: 9-2001 |
You would think the leader of the Free World would at least be able to string a coherent sentence together and not rely on us to interpolate what he is saying. Sure, I know what I think he is supposed to be saying, but jeesh, it makes you wonder if HE knows what he is trying to say. Then again, when he says something outright like "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction" he is proven dead wrong, so perhaps marble-mouthing it is safer for him. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 3264 Registered: 8-2003 |
He's saying (and has said repeatedly) that the private accounts address the shortfall in Social Security. SS suffers from a lack of growth in the revenues involved as related to the system's future promised benefits. Those future liabilities are calculated now based upon wages instead of inflation. That forumla used for calculating benefits is on the table, the accounts are on the table, as are other aspects of SS. You had to know this already, and if you've been paying attention you are more likely to know that's what Bush was talking about. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 5855 Registered: 1-2003 |
But I couldn't get that from the excerpts above. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 3266 Registered: 8-2003 |
Really? Had no clue? OK. If you say so. I'm surprised. | ||
| Bill P Citizen Username: Mrincredible Post Number: 117 Registered: 1-2005  |
One would think, since this is a cornerstone of the the second W term, that he would have a better handle on the rhetoric (not in the perjorative sense of the word) of his cause. Whether or not you agree with him, he's not going to convince people this will work if he can't explain it coherently. An American president seeking to champion a piece of legislation should be able to talk about it clearly, in a fashion which the average voter can understand, not just us sophisticated and highly educated Maplewooders. I'm certainly not convinced. I know Social Security needs some work, but he's got a lot more work to do before I believe his scheme. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 3267 Registered: 8-2003 |
What's your view on what should be done to fix the system, Bill P? | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 1102 Registered: 8-2003 |
actually, he's not saying that private accounts will address a shortfall (and they don't). he's saying that indexing to inflation instead of wages will address at least part of the shortfall, and beyond that "everything's on the table." but he carefully avoids answering the actual question of whether or not privatization is a solution to the problems he says SS in in for. SO - given that a supporter (cjc) and I can't exactly agree on what Bush said here, it's a pretty good indication that he did a terrible job of communicating his thoughts. | ||
| themp Supporter Username: Themp Post Number: 1561 Registered: 12-2001 |
That's typically why his locutions are so tortured. Saying nothing deliberately is hard. He's not as good as Dr. Irwin Corey, for instance. | ||
| Bill P Citizen Username: Mrincredible Post Number: 119 Registered: 1-2005 |
Okay, I personally think re-indexing to inflation - not a bad idea. Increasing the age at which one can begin to claim benefits. People are living a heck of a lot longer now (and since I work for a pacemaker company I'm all for that) and working longer as well. I see these private accounts as a big boost for the stock market and not a real solution. Increasing the wage cap on Social Security taxation. I actually was fortunate enough to hit the cap this year, and my last two paychecks were higher than I expected. I'd give that up to increase future Social Security solvency. I know a lot of people are dead set against that but I'm cool with it. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 3268 Registered: 8-2003 |
Incorrect. We don't have the part of the story about his pitch for private accounts and what they'll do which surely had to precede this bit here. Private Accounts in the system with their accompanying higher rate of growth will bolster the funds that are involved (and lacking) in this current retirement scheme thereby addressing the shortfall in relation to promised benefits. Recalculating the benefit formula would lessen the amount of funds necessary to make good on liabilities. Even AARP's website was talking about investing the SS surplus in 'other investments', albeit they'd like the government to do it which was rejected by Greenspan. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 1103 Registered: 8-2003 |
all I can go by is what's written. and in the passage above he says nothing about private accounts addressing the shortfall. if you want to assume he said something about it earlier, that's your prerogative. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 7911 Registered: 5-2001 |
At least one study indicates that just changing the SS index to the CPI instead of wages would solve the funding issue for just about ever. I haven't viewed the assumptions used, so I am not offering this as fact. The thought of the Feds investing the SS Trust Fund in the equity markets is I have to admit a little scary, but in theroy it would achieve a rate of return that wouldn't require benefit cuts. However, the effect on the markets of doing this are unknown, as is the case with private accounts. Would more money in the market drive up prices or depress them? | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 3270 Registered: 8-2003 |
The problem with feds investing in the market is undue influence over the markets by one single entity. Long term the market will rise -- with or without this reform. I'm not sure you can say that all prices could increase. People with shorter horizons to retirement would be buying more bonds too. And people still individually trade stocks and sectors, selling and buying. If all this just drives up all stocks and the money is unendingly behind it for generations to come, what's the crap-shoot people are talking in ads against the reform? Bill P -- thanks for your thoughts. More revenues and/or growth in needed to make SS whole. Some want to just cut benefits and raise taxes. There is another way, and a way where the government can't spend the money you've set aside but instead have that money grow. |
