• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

How Much is Bush's SS Tour Costing You?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I read that the money Bush is telling everyone "is yours" is actually only that portion of earnings ABOVE the average earnings of the "classic" Social Security plan. In other words, if you would have earned 3% under SS and your private account does 6% you get to keep 3%.

Just another Bush shell game where he and his friends get to whack up the proceeds from the scam.

And they're using generational warfare to accomplish it.

Despicable.

 
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: Spencer278
Originally posted by: BBond
Here is a story from the Washington Post/MSNBC on the price of Bush's Social Security Destruction Tour. And just think, it's all a waste of money because Americans have
figured out Bush's Social Security scam.

His "plan" will do nothing to "fix" Social Security. He'll destroy a system that's solvent until
2042 by even the most conservative estimates and saddle the nation with another few trillion dollars in debt. All so fools who fall for this larceny can foot the bill again as Bush family long-time Wall St. buddies can make another fortune handling their "investments."

What a bunch of rubes. The Brooklyn Bridge is still for sale if any of you are interested. :roll:

Stop wasting our money, George. Stay in Washington for once. Try straightening out any of the myriad messes you've already made before you work on the next one.

Cost of Bush?s Social Security drive questioned

Democrat seeks accounting of '60 Stops in 60 Days' blitz

By Jonathan Weisman
Updated: 1:31 a.m. ET April 7, 2005

The Bush administration's ongoing Social Security blitz is unusual in scale in the selling of a domestic policy, mobilizing the president and vice president, four Cabinet secretaries and 17 lesser officials, down to an associate director of strategic planning for the White House budget office.

It also may be one of the most costly in memory, well into the millions of dollars, according to some rough, unofficial calculations.

House Appropriations Committee Republicans have quietly asked the administration for an accounting of its "60 Stops in 60 Days" blitz. And yesterday, Rep. Henry A. Waxman (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the Government Reform Committee, formally asked the Government Accountability Office not only for the cost but also "whether the Bush Administration has crossed the line from education to propaganda."

Education or propaganda?

"No one disputes the right of the President to make his policy recommendations known to Congress and the public," Waxman wrote in a letter to U.S. Comptroller General David M. Walker. "Yet there is a vital line between legitimately informing the public, as the President did in his State of the Union address, and commandeering the vast resources of the federal government to fund a political campaign for Social Security privatization."

Administration officials do not deny the Social Security campaign constitutes an extraordinary legislative push, certainly the largest since President Bill Clinton rolled out his national health care plan. But, they say, the issue of Social Security's solvency demands no less. Besides, White House and Treasury officials said, the president and his Cabinet travel all the time. For these 60 days, they will simply have a common theme.

Range of events

Thirty five days into the 60-day push, administration officials have held 123 events in 35 states. Participants range from President Bush and Vice President Cheney to Noam Neusner, associate director for strategic planning at the Office of Management and Budget, and Michel N. Korbey, a senior adviser to the Social Security Administration.

Events could be anything from a full-blown presidential address to a meeting between Eric Stewart, a deputy assistant secretary of commerce, and the Gaston County, N.C., Chamber of Commerce to Neusner's B'nai B'rith breakfast in Baltimore.

Assistant Secretary of Commerce William H. Lash has ventured to the Northeastern Wisconsin Trade Conference in Green Bay. Timothy Bitsberger, the assistant Treasury secretary for financial markets, may be accustomed to conclaves of Wall Street bond traders, but on March 22 he was talking about Social Security in Oxford, Miss.

Treasury on the offensive

The Treasury Department has hired four full-time employees to help run the show, including establishing a new Web site, http://www.strengtheningsocialsecurity.gov/, and a war room, dubbed the Social Security Information Center. Yesterday, Treasury held a first-ever "radio day," opening its ornate Cash Room and 28 administration officials to nearly 30 radio talk-show hosts.

"Strengthening Social Security for future generations is a top priority for this administration, and the policy campaign underway reflects that," Treasury spokesman Robert Nichols said.

The administration has declined to estimate the cost of the entire operation. Nichols said four Treasury officials, including Secretary John W. Snow, are flying coach on commercial airlines at the government rate, pulling funds from the department's $3 million travel budget.

The White House, Social Security Administration, Small Business Administration and departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and Commerce are tapping their own travel budgets. According to the law, each agency will report to Congress at the end of each quarter the costs of senior officials' travel.

Those costs have not escaped congressional attention.

"Currently, no one in Congress or the public knows the full extent and cost of the federal resources being devoted to promoting the President's Social Security agenda," Waxman wrote.

Lofty airfares

Even Republicans raised their eyebrows when they heard new employees were brought on for the campaign, said a House Republican staff member, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid embarrassing the president.

The costs are likely to be substantial. A rough calculation of commercial fares for the administration's travels tops $15,000 for the scheduled speakers, but that does not count their entourages.

In 2000, when jet fuel prices were lower, the GAO estimated that flying Air Force One cost $54,100 per hour, or $60,250 in today's dollars. So far, the president has traveled to Indiana, New Jersey, Kentucky, Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee, Florida, Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa and West Virginia. That is enough, by commercial schedules, to take at least 30 hours, or $1.8 million.

A C-137C, which the vice president generally travels on, cost $10,300 per hour to operate, or $11,470 today. Cheney's travels on the Social Security tour have taken him to Bakersfield, Calif.; Reno, Nev.; Battle Creek, Mich., and Pittsburgh, enough to keep a commercial flight in the air 14 hours, at a cost of $160,580.

Excluding security and aircraft costs, the White House has estimated that staff costs on presidential trips average between $22,000 and $59,000, the Associated Press has reported. Staff costs for Bush's 16 Social Security events thus would range from $352,000 to $944,000.

So lets see I should pay SS tax to get plus pay back the scam fund just to get 70% of the benifits I paid for. No thanks I would rather give my money to wall street then you.

I'd rather wipe my butt with twenties than give it to this plan.

Of courses that would have a better return then either SS or the wall street scam.
 
Originally posted by: catnap1972
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Well, if the President would actually constructively use taxpayer's time and money by actually working to fix the problem, then that probably wouldn't be the case.

But, Medicare, is a bigger emergency that is being ignored.

Not really...they're waiting for the drug benefit to go into effect next year, THEN the alarm bells are going to start going off full tilt.

"TEH EVIL MEDICARE IS BANKRUPTING THE COUNTRY--WE MUST FIX (ABOLISH) IT NOW!!!"

Just you watch

You mean the drug company payoff disguised as a drug benefit. Another example of what Bush and his cronies accomplish in the name of "public service."

LMAO

 
Originally posted by: BBond
I read that the money Bush is telling everyone "is yours" is actually only that portion of earnings ABOVE the average earnings of the "classic" Social Security plan. In other words, if you would have earned 3% under SS and your private account does 6% you get to keep 3%.

Just another Bush shell game where he and his friends get to whack up the proceeds from the scam.

And they're using generational warfare to accomplish it.

Despicable.

I'll go look it up again.
 
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Yep, I supported SS through my grandmother's retirement (she worked until age 73) and through my father's disability until the day he died.

I feel it is my duty to support SS all I can.

As did I. We all did. Since 1983 we paid an increase in FICA to "fix" the system. And it did. But the money we paid in has been replaced with IOUs that Bush now wants to renege on as he borrows another $2 trillion for a plan that HE HIMSELF ADMITS DOES NOTHING TO FIX SOCIAL SECURITY.

Bush's plan only makes matters worse. Except of course for Bush and Wall St.

Go ahead, suckers, "privatize" your FICA payments. When you're old enough to collect, if they don't raise the age limit to "DEATH" by that time, you can collect all those HUGE investment earnings THAT ARE OVER THE AMOUNT YOU WOULD HAVE EARNED UNDER THE OLD SOCIAL SECURITY PLAN.

I feel it's necessary to point this out again. You only get to keep what you make ABOVE normal Social Security Plan growth.

And that's only if there is anything "above." What do you do if you plan to retire in a time span that turns out to be another 2001 through 2005? Eat less? Live without your medication? Lose your home? Keep working until you drop and not worry about retirement?

Social Security was set up as a safety net. The funds aren't at risk. Yours will be.

And you'll pay those fees to Bush's Wall St. buddies whether you make a profit or not. 😉

It's a win-win for them and a break-even (if you're lucky) or lose for you.

As far as I'm concered I'm not going to see a dime from SS or a private accout. I would like to see real reforms to SS like cutting the rolls by 50-75%, eleminate the trust fund, and equire that SS payouts are the same as SS income. Adjust the SS tax as need on a quartly bases. The only good thing about private accounts is that it would limit the growth of the trust fund and therefor save me tax money in 10 years.
 
ss could have been fixed after bush came into office in 2000, but he already had it in his head to privatize the system and therefore overlooked VERY easy fixes that could have shored up the current system.
 
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: Spencer278

So lets see I should pay SS tax to get plus pay back the scam fund just to get 70% of the benifits I paid for. No thanks I would rather give my money to wall street then you.

Too late, pal. You're already giving your money to me. And I did the same for the generation that preceded mine.

The only thing that's changed here is your generation can't overcome their greed.

I'm not greedy; I just want the same deal Ida Mae Fuller got.

"The first American to receive Social Security benefits was Ida Mae Fuller, a secretary from Ludlow, who paid a total of $25 in Social Security taxes for two years. She retired in 1940 and received a check for $22. She received a total of $20,000 in Social Security benefits from 1940 until she died in 1975 at age 100."

Article from Sen. Leahy's (D-Ver.) website

A return of $900 for every $1 I pay into the system - is that too much to ask? If it's good enough for previous generations, it's good enough for me, no? Or are today's and yesterday's seniors robbing the youth blind?
 
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: Spencer278

So lets see I should pay SS tax to get plus pay back the scam fund just to get 70% of the benifits I paid for. No thanks I would rather give my money to wall street then you.

Too late, pal. You're already giving your money to me. And I did the same for the generation that preceded mine.

The only thing that's changed here is your generation can't overcome their greed.

I'm not greedy; I just want the same deal Ida Mae Fuller got.

"The first American to receive Social Security benefits was Ida Mae Fuller, a secretary from Ludlow, who paid a total of $25 in Social Security taxes for two years. She retired in 1940 and received a check for $22. She received a total of $20,000 in Social Security benefits from 1940 until she died in 1975 at age 100."

Article from Sen. Leahy's (D-Ver.) website

A return of $900 for every $1 I pay into the system - is that too much to ask? If it's good enough for previous generations, it's good enough for me, no? Or are today's and yesterday's seniors robbing the youth blind?
You're right, sort of - benefits of the initial system should have been at least partially pro-rated, or perhaps an initial waiting period of 5 years or so should have been implemented (premiums started in year X, no one is eligible until year X+Y, no one whose retirement age occurs before X+Y pays premiums). But the system still could have been proerly funded; especially if the so-called trust-fund had been well administered, instead of being treated like a slush fund.

Obviously, none of these things can be done now - SS reform is fine, and replacing SS with a needs-based system, at least for people currently nearing retirement, who have been counting on the program, would also be fine.

But the implied conclusion that 'private accounts will cure the SS shortfall' is bunk, and always will be.
 
It appears Bobnd is still unencumbered by clues...

Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Yep, I supported SS through my grandmother's retirement (she worked until age 73) and through my father's disability until the day he died.

I feel it is my duty to support SS all I can.

Yes those that have paid in should be supported, and those younger workers need a SS plan that better suits todays demographics and not the demographics of their grandparents generation



As did I. We all did. Since 1983 we paid an increase in FICA to "fix" the system. And it did. But the money we paid in has been replaced with IOUs that Bush now wants to renege on as he borrows another $2 trillion for a plan that HE HIMSELF ADMITS DOES NOTHING TO FIX SOCIAL SECURITY.


THese IOUs were started by the LBJ admin(yes a democrat). These IOUs are the biggest problem with SS. Move SS back on the books and treat the surplusses like a real pension fund would and thes problems will go away.




Bush's plan only makes matters worse. Except of course for Bush and Wall St.
[/b]
A plan modeled after the federal employees thrift saving plan would have very low cost. Lower than most 401ks and such.
[/b]

Go ahead, suckers, "privatize" your FICA payments. When you're old enough to collect, if they don't raise the age limit to "DEATH" by that time, you can collect all those HUGE investment earnings THAT ARE OVER THE AMOUNT YOU WOULD HAVE EARNED UNDER THE OLD SOCIAL SECURITY PLAN.

I feel it's necessary to point this out again. You only get to keep what you make ABOVE normal Social Security Plan growth.


This is all based upon a false reported that was retracted the same day it was printed. However the retraction does not keep you from spreading the false report. MOneys that go into your private account would be yours. However you would receive less benefit from the standard social security, as you paid into a private account and not the traditional SS plan. Every thing that you put into your private account is yours, there is now clawback.



And that's only if there is anything "above." What do you do if you plan to retire in a time span that turns out to be another 2001 through 2005? Eat less? Live without your medication? Lose your home? Keep working until you drop and not worry about retirement?


Ask the several million goverment employees that got to opt out of social security. Their private plans are working quite well. Take a look the retirement plans teachers have or what galveston county has. These are not insurmountable problems. They are all retiring with far more benefits that social security could have offered them






Social Security was set up as a safety net. The funds aren't at risk. Yours will be.


The funds are not at risk, but your children and grandchildrens incomes are. By the time I retire it is projected the workers will be subject to 25-30% payroll tax to support SS and medicare. I guess you have yours and dont care about future generations. Lets fix the system for everyone, including the young.

And you'll pay those fees to Bush's Wall St. buddies whether you make a profit or not. 😉



Thrift savings plan has very low fees.


It's a win-win for them and a break-even (if you're lucky) or lose for you.


[/quote]

Doing nothing is a lose lose for every one.


 
hey, sit here..open ur mouth, and suck on this left one..............................and now the right one (referring to the orginal poster)
 
Do you actually think going on tour and speaking in front of people a vacation? Please probably the last thing this butcher of the english language wants to do. What a pile of rubbish.

I don't know about you but earning %1 in SS is bullcrap it is a great way to live as long as you want to be a greeter at walmart till your death. What do the Dems want to do? They want to scare you and sit on their hands w/o offering their own idea.
 
Originally posted by: charrison

Ask the several million goverment employees that got to opt out of social security. Their private plans are working quite well. Take a look the retirement plans teachers have or what galveston county has. These are not insurmountable problems. They are all retiring with far more benefits that social security could have offered them

I agree with you on the merits of privatization, but its important to keep the facts straight. Government employees (speaking from experience here) do not opt out of SS. They receive SS right along side their private accounts and pensions. (That's right, they get all 3.) Their private account is essentially a 401k. For example, when I retire, I will get somehwere between 40-60% of my high 3 years salary as a pension, whatever my TSP plan (private account) has in it, and whatever is left of SS by then. So in other words, government employees have not had to give up their SS.

The president's use of the federal plan isn't quite an apples for apples comparison since we get SS also.

I think the primary difference here between our point of view and those that are against privatization is that we believe that with proper savings and fiscall responsibility, anyone can do a better job saving for retirement than the current SS plan offers and that if they don't save responsibly than sometimes we have live with the choices we make. I agree that people that have allready paid into the system shoulg get what they put in back,, because they have planed for retirement based on that. But new workers need a new plan that more accurately reflects the economic reality of today. (Less workers, more retirees).
 
Originally posted by: EXman
Do you actually think going on tour and speaking in front of people a vacation? Please probably the last thing this butcher of the english language wants to do. What a pile of rubbish.

I don't know about you but earning %1 in SS is bullcrap it is a great way to live as long as you want to be a greeter at walmart till your death. What do the Dems want to do? They want to scare you and sit on their hands w/o offering their own idea.

Again, why should they offer a solution to something when the schmuck called our President hasn't even correctly identified the problem.
 
Originally posted by: tss4
Originally posted by: charrison

Ask the several million goverment employees that got to opt out of social security. Their private plans are working quite well. Take a look the retirement plans teachers have or what galveston county has. These are not insurmountable problems. They are all retiring with far more benefits that social security could have offered them

I agree with you on the merits of privatization, but its important to keep the facts straight. Government employees (speaking from experience here) do not opt out of SS. They receive SS right along side their private accounts and pensions. (That's right, they get all 3.) Their private account is essentially a 401k. For example, when I retire, I will get somehwere between 40-60% of my high 3 years salary as a pension, whatever my TSP plan (private account) has in it, and whatever is left of SS by then. So in other words, government employees have not had to give up their SS.

I should made it more clear, I was not referring to federal employees. I was referring to state and local goverment employees that have been able to opt out of SS because they already had pension funds.
 
Originally posted by: BBond
Looks like trouble in the ranks over Bush's failed Social Security Destruction Plan.

And look, the Republicans don't have a plan either.

Senate GOP mulls shift on Social Security

With public opinion polls showing modest support at best for Bush?s plan, Republicans have yet to coalesce behind a proposal of their own.

Dems Want to Focus on Other Savings Plans
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050426/D89MOBIO0.html
WASHINGTON (AP) - House Democrats, emboldened by their united opposition to President Bush's Social Security privatization proposal, are preparing to pivot soon to supporting proposals aimed on boosting personal savings outside the federal retirement program.

Among the ideas being considered, according to congressional aides speaking on the condition of anonymity, are improvements to existing retirement savings programs, such as trying to increase participation in corporate 401(k) plans by automatically enrolling workers. Under current law, workers must opt into such programs.

Another idea in a more developmental stage is a civilian version of the Thrift Savings Plan, the 401(k)-style program that federal employees can invest in on top of the contributions they make to Social Security.

If Bush's private accounts are taken off the table, the Democrats must have other savings ideas, the Democrats say.


PAPER: Republicans Will Back Off Insistence on Personal Accounts...
http://www.drudgereport.com
 
Back
Top