Wisconsin Recall Results
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-06-06/wisconsin-recall-results
Governor Scott Walker survived an attempt to oust him from office. Wisconsin voters also gave him a place in history: It was the first time a U.S. governor has won a recall election. The recall campaign came about after the Republican governor stripped away collective bargaining rights for public workers. Walker's win was a blow for Democrats and unions. Republicans say their victory shows voters want leaders who will make tough fiscal decisions. Whether the Wisconsin results are a bellwether for the 2012 presidential race remains to be seen.
Guests
Chris Cillizza
author of The Fix, a Washington Post politics blog, managing editor of PostPolitics.com and author of the book, "The Gospel According to The Fix."
Molly Ball
staff writer for The Atlantic.
Craig Gilbert
Washington bureau chief, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
Douglas Belkin
reporter, The Wall Street Journal.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
"Context please. What are these facts you are presenting?"
Vote on the 1964 Civil Rights Act - in the context of pisces saying the Republicans are "against civil rights".
"puzzled as to why the Washington Post doesn't "count."
Oh, it counts if you can produce it. Just your recollection of what you read some 7 years ago doesn't - and sincerely, I mean no offense by that. I only say that because I've had occasions to bring up things I THOUGHT I read - where, when I go back and check them out, my memory wasn't that clear after all. Again, no offense, just trying to keep it real.
MB = message board.
First off, I'm not in my 50's so the economic collapse would have affected me. If I remember correctly, the Dow was somewhere above 14,000 when the Lehman Bros went down. Last time I checked, it still hadn't recovered to that point so I am (theoretically of course), still behind. Fact are facts spin them how you will.
I know enough about investing in stocks and one thing I know is that the average Joe cannot just walk into a stock exchange and start buying. You need to go through a gate keeper, AKA a broker, who naturally will want to take a cut. You are forced to go through these people and pay their fees to participate, there is no alternative. This is my point, it would be the biggest cash cow for money managers in history. 1.5% of hundreds of billions is a lot of money.
Regarding Social Security Privatization:
This is not the article that detailed the entire privatization plan-- still looking-- but this is from around that time and gives you a feel for what a sham it was going to be. Go to Washington Post Archives for more on this subject.
"Participants Would Forfeit Part of Accounts' Profits," Wash Post, Feb 3, 2005.
The mechanism, detailed by a senior administration official before President Bush's State of the Union address, would hold down the cost of Bush's plan to introduce personal accounts to the Social Security system. But it could come as a surprise to lawmakers and voters who have thought of these accounts as akin to an individual retirement account or a 401(k) that they could use fully upon retirement.
In effect, the accounts would work more like a loan from the government, to be paid back upon retirement at an inflation- adjusted 3 percent interest rate -- the interest the money would have earned if it had been invested in Treasury bonds, said Peter R. Orszag, a Social Security analyst at the Brookings Institution and a former Clinton White House economist.
Critics of the Bush plan said the proposed "claw back" renders the whole idea of "personal retirement accounts" virtually meaningless. Indeed, the system would ultimately look something like a proposal made by President Bill Clinton, in which the government would have invested Social Security taxes in the stock market.
Ecgberht: Regarding my memory, you don't know who I am, do you? People who do know, well... some of them say 'Please God, in the next life, let her be wrong...'
"so I am (theoretically of course), still behind. Fact are facts spin them how you will."
I agree, facts are facts, and the fact is, you are NOT still behind. As the DOW fell from 14000 to 6500 over an 18 month period, did you stop investing and wait for it to recover? No. New money put to work at 6500 - in fact at any point below its current level (again, only about 18 months worth of contributions would have been above current levels not counting any dividends) made gains.
Brokers do not work for free, absolutely, but neither do you and I. Brokers get a fee when you buy and sell and money managers get paid for keeping your account with your holdings in it. Those fees (in today's world) are minimal. Would it be a "cash cow" for money managers? Yes, they would profit. Is that bad? If so, why? Just because money managers make money does not mean, 1) it's a bad idea, or 2) that's why it was proposed.
To say this is a "loan" is a misrepresentation. The point is that, yes, you still have to contribute to SS because there are still beneficiaries to be paid, but the key is here: "Upon retirement, workers would then be given any money that exceeded inflation-adjusted gains over 3 percent. "
That means you get to take advantage of the superior gains of the stock market over time compared to T-bills.
"you don't know who I am, do you?"
Well, unless you're Iztaccihuatl the Aztec warrior princess, I guess you got me there.
Excerpt from Washington Post article on Soc Sec privatization, Feb 4, 2005. Read the last line, which references an "annual payout." But will keep looking for the more detailed article. Also, you can read more about this in the Washington Post Archives.
"Benefit Cuts Would Offset Contributions, White House Explains the Proposal Further"
Under the current system, retirees are guaranteed a monthly Social Security benefit check, based largely on years worked and payroll taxes paid into the system. [Bush] envisions a system in which workers could invest some of their payroll taxes in stocks and bonds, accumulating savings and investment returns in personal accounts that would be theirs upon retirement. In exchange, those workers would accept a smaller monthly check from the Social Security Administration.
As details about the proposal emerged yesterday, the White House and opponents began sharpening their arguments for and against personal accounts. Opponents argued that reductions to guaranteed benefits that would accompany the accounts would render them all but pointless. Whether those reductions come out of retirees' monthly Social Security checks or out of their personal accounts "is a distinction without a difference," said Gene B. Sperling, a National Economic Council director in the Clinton White House.
Guaranteed benefits over the worker's lifetime would be reduced by approximately $151,990 -- the amount the worker would have contributed to Social Security but instead contributed to his personal account, plus 3 percent interest above inflation. The remainder, $69,562, would be the increase in benefit the worker would receive over his lifetime above the level he would have received if he stayed in the traditional system. That sum -- expressed as an annual payout -- would total $5,008.
Yes and most of the southern democrats became republicans. Tell it all, okay. Remember the Dixie-crats. One even had a love child. then you have Rand Paul and it went oo far. We dhould revisit the 14/15 ammendments. Don't even try to tell me about me. I know more, see more than most of you ever will. Just as i cannot see through the eyes of a gay person, you definitely cannot see through mine. All i have to do is listen to the right wing candidates and their stereotypes of me and mine. i should vote for them? I do not genuflect, get off the side walk, will look you in the eye and will give as good as i get with no hesitation.
"Excerpt from Washington Post article"
As I read this, that's a 5K bump per year for having a private account. Ask your local retiree if they would take that.
to Mike Sergeant,
Good on you. You boiled that down to it's essence. Thank you for your common sense.
"Yes and most of the southern democrats became republicans. "
A common meme of the left. Many even try to paint that face on today's Republican party, when most of those people are dead.
Dixie-crats?! Check your history, pisces. That was 20 years earlier.
The Democratic party has always been the party of slavery. From the 1860's right up until today; slavery in the fields or slavery to the government - I see little difference.
"One even had a love child."
John Edwards?
"We dhould revisit the 14/15 ammendments. "
Who says that, pisces?
"I do not genuflect, get off the side walk, will look you in the eye and will give as good as i get with no hesitation."
And so you should, and you should vote for whomever you please.
echberht wrote:
"I agree, facts are facts, and the fact is, you are NOT still behind. As the DOW fell from 14000 to 6500 over an 18 month period, did you stop investing and wait for it to recover?"
No I didn't, but all the profits that I had gained while the market was going up from 6500 to 14000 were erased. I continued to invest during the re-build but the amount I had in the market at the 14000 point is more that I have put in since 6500. So, while I'm no math whiz, a lesser amount invested for a shorter period of time at a lower return means I still made money just not as much as I lost.
I never said that the broker's making money is a bad idea, IF and only if I make the choice to use them. Unfortunately they are the ONLY way into the market, therefore no choice. I would be REQUIRED to pay the financial manager if Soc Sec were privatized. There simply is no way around this and the money that I would be paying the financial manager is coming straight out of my retirement.
Ecgberht: You really should do some reading on Bush's privatization scheme, the details were/are fascinating. Details like having to pay back to regular SS the monies diverted into your "private" acct plus 3% annual inflation. And the fact acknowledged even by the Bush admin that the govt would immediately have to start borrowing $ to pay current and near retirees (estimated at $1-2 trillion). And the part about guaranteeing a minimum payout based on the current poverty line for people who screwed up their private acct investments (approx $1100/mo in 2005). And the proposed change to the benefits calculation formula.
$5008/year? How far is anyone going to get on an additional 5K/yr? Would anyone turn it down? Of course not. But that's not the point. The real point is it was a sham and for once, the American public recognized it as such.
The Bush administration came here to steal, only to steal, and steal they did. Anyone with an open mind can see that now, even if they couldn't see it at that time. 2 wars unpaid for, a prescription drug benefit unpaid for, no plans for Iraq beyond the first week of combat, "Doin a heluva job Brownie" running FEMA, a 24 yr old NASA spokesperson who said he had a college degree when he didn't, agency heads funnelling contract money to childhood friends, Wolfowitz giving his mistress a higher salary at World Bank, the list goes on and on and on.
The Bush crowd ignored details and competence as if they didn't matter. But they do. This, from the man who answered a tax question in a 2000 Presidential Debate with 'You'll be living in a peaceful world.' And people voted for him.
Just in case you think that I think I know it all, no, I don't. I knew Bush would wreck the country. But I didn't know he would wreck it so quickly or completely. This is his legacy. I'm not happy with what Obama has and has not done, but we're stuck with him and need to re-elect him because Romney will finish this place off.
"So, while I'm no math whiz, a lesser amount invested for a shorter period of time at a lower return means I still made money just not as much as I lost."
I'll take one more shot at this Mike. Let's say you invested $100 some years ago at 6500. Now the market is at 14000 and you have say, $220. The market returns to 6500 so you're back to $100 again, but this time, on the way back to 12000+ you are adding to your $100 with new money. That new money has now gained 5500 points and you've got most of your original $220 back. Now, the AMOUNT of money you had and how much you contribute matters, but I'm going to guess that your near 100% gain on the new money has overcome your remaining 12-14% loss from 14000 - and remember you were only investing in this range for about 18 months. Most of your money went in BELOW current levels.
In essence you are dollar cost averaging into the market as well, so you have been buying more shares cheaply since 6500 than the shares you were buying at 14000 when the market tanked.
As for the brokerage fees, ain't nuthin' free. Yes, you would be required to pay the financial manager if SS were privatized. Today, you are required to pay the employees at SS and the Treasury department.
Again, what this comes down to is whether you trust the growth of American stocks more than you trust the growth of American debt instruments, and my answer is, if I have sufficient time on my side, 100% yes.
And, what's more, private accounts take the money out of the hands of Congressmen to spend. If you're like me, you get periodic statements from your 401K and statements from the FG with regard to your SS contributions and expected payouts. When I look at my 401K, and I see x shares of XYZ corporation, I know that the fund manager is holding those shares for me and those shares are real. When I look at my SS statement, all I have is the government's promise to pay me when I retire. Given the choice, I'll take the former.
Unfortunately the majority of pension plans are no longer defined benefit style. Most companies have drunk the 401k koolaid. And even the originator of the 401k concept admits most people have no business guiding their investments. So only the stock marketeers benefit via fees and float and there WILL be a pension crisis some day.
One can only hope to make astounding salaries during the working years and have a really huge mattress to stuff it in.
"You really should do some reading on Bush's privatization scheme,"
Well, I read your posts, avintageyear, which, I'm going to assume was the worst of the worst.
Yes there would have to be a transition strategy, but there are two factors to consider; 1) only limited amounts of money could be invested, and 2) the investment market would be awash in capital - instead of having that same money available to Congress to spend, workers, within limits, would have the choice of where they wanted to invest it. I think if this had been approved you would have seen growth like nothing since WWII.
"And the part about guaranteeing a minimum payout based on the current poverty line for people who screwed up their private acct investments "
Virtually impossible to do with the limited investment choices and another scare-tactic.
"The Bush administration came here to steal, only to steal, and steal they did. "
No point in commenting on the rest of your post, avintageyear, you have BDS, I get it.
"Just in case you think that I think I know it all"
Don't worry, I didn't think that.
"Romney will finish this place off"
Sorry, I don't see that. Bush spent too much, and I blame the Republican Congress from 2001 to 2007 as well. I am expecting Romney to be closer fiscally to Scott Walker (to get us back on topic) than George W. Bush.
EcgBerht: what's BDS? I can only imagine. Whatever it means, I am SIV-- a single issue voter (SS/Medicare). We're too close (54, 55) and have paid in too much to make alternate plans. Yes, have been saving like mad for 25 yrs + real estate + small pension. But no medicare/ss will sink us.
"EcgBerht: what's BDS? I can only imagine."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Derangement_Syndrome
avintageyear ... remember it's a JOKE. Whatever else you lose, keep you sense of humor.
"But no medicare/ss will sink us."
There's not a politician alive that will take that away from you.
Every time I hear someone comment on how private schools are able to educate students for less money than public schools, I would like to know the makeup of the student body.
How many students are disabled, how many have learning disabilities, how many don't speak english as their first language, what is their financial stability (is there food in the home)
Private schools tend to not take these students, which leaves the public schools to take care of these United States children!