[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Antifa is now officially a terrorist organization.

The Greatness of Charlie Kirk: An Eyewitness Account of His Life and Martyrdom

Charlie Kirk Takes on Army of Libs at California's UCR

DR. ALVEDA KING: REST IN PEACE CHARLIE KIRK

Steven Bonnell wants to murder Americans he disagrees with

What the fagots LGBTQ really means

I watched Charlie Kirk get assassinated. This is my experience.

Elon Musk Delivers Stunning Remarks At Historic UK March (Tommy Robinson)

"Transcript: Mrs. Erika Kirk Delivers Public Address: ‘His Movement Will Go On’"

"Victor Davis Hanson to Newsmax: Kirk Slaying Crosses Rubicon"

Rest In Peace Charlie Kirk

Charlotte train murder: Graphic video captures random fatal stabbing of young Ukrainian refugee

Berlin in July 1945 - Probably the best restored film material you'll watch from that time!

Ok this is Funny

Walking Through 1980s Los Angeles: The City That Reinvented Cool

THE ZOMBIES OF AMERICA

THE OLDEST PHOTOS OF NEW YORK YOU'VE NEVER SEEN

John Rich – Calling Out P. Diddy, TVA Scandal, and Joel Osteen | SRS #232

Capablanca Teaches Us The ONLY Chess Opening You'll Ever Need

"How Bruce Springsteen Fooled America"

How ancient Rome was excavated in Italy in the 1920s. Unique rare videos and photos.

Reagan JOKE On The Homeless

The Deleted Wisdom (1776 Report)

Sicko Transfaggots video

The Englund Gambit Checkmate

20 Minutes Of Black DC Residents Supporting Trump's Federal Takeover!

"Virginia Public Schools Deserve This Reckoning"

"'Pack the Bags, We're Going on a Guilt Trip'—the Secret to the Democrats' Success"

"Washington, D.C., Is a Disgrace"

"Trump Orders New 'Highly Accurate' Census Excluding Illegals"

what a freakin' insane asylum

Sorry, CNN, We're Not Going to Stop Talking About the Russian Collusion Hoax

"No Autopsy Can Restore the Democratic Party’s Viability"

RIP Ozzy

"Trump floats 'restriction' for Commanders if they fail to ditch nickname in favor of Redskins return"

"Virginia Governor’s Race Heats Up As Republican Winsome Sears Does a Hard Reboot of Her Campaign"

"We Hate Communism!!"

"Mamdani and the Democratic Schism"

"The 2nd Impeachment: Trump’s Popularity Still Scares Them to Death"

"President Badass"

"Jasmine Crockett's Train Wreck Interview Was a Disaster"

"How Israel Used Spies, Smuggled Drones and AI to Stun and Hobble Iran"

There hasn’T been ... a single updaTe To This siTe --- since I joined.

"This Is Not What Authoritarianism Looks Like"

America Erupts… ICE Raids Takeover The Streets

AC/DC- Riff Raff + Go Down [VH1 Uncut, July 5, 1996]

Why is Peter Schiff calling Bitcoin a ‘giant cult’ and how does this impact market sentiment?

Esso Your Butt Buddy Horseshit jacks off to that shit

"The Addled Activist Mind"

"Don’t Stop with Harvard"


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: Bush: People Should Work More Hours To Grow Economy
Source: Daily Caller
URL Source: http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/08/b ... rk-more-hours-to-grow-economy/
Published: Jul 9, 2015
Author: Blake Neff
Post Date: 2015-07-09 09:31:10 by buckeroo
Keywords: None
Views: 10472
Comments: 97

Democratic operatives are all over Jeb Bush for declaring in an interview that Americans need to “work longer hours” for substantial economic growth to return.

The Republican presidential candidate was conducting a recorded interview with New Hampshire’s The Union-Leader and was answering a question about his tax plan, which he used as an opportunity to state his goals for economic growth. Democratic operatives are all over Jeb Bush for declaring in an interview that Americans need to “work longer hours” for substantial economic growth to return.

The Republican presidential candidate was conducting a recorded interview with New Hampshire’s The Union-Leader and was answering a question about his tax plan, which he used as an opportunity to state his goals for economic growth.

“My aspiration for the country and I believe we can achieve it, is 4 percent growth as far as the eye can see,” Bush said. “Which means we have to be a lot more productive, workforce participation has to rise from its all-time modern lows. It means that people need to work longer hours and, through their productivity, gain more income for their families. That’s the only way we’re going to get out of this rut that we’re in.”

According to OECD data, U.S. workers average 1789 hours of work per year, above the global average for developed countries. Among those with full-time jobs the average work week is 47 hours, according to polling by Gallup, while for part-time workers the average is about 26 hours per week.

Democratic operatives are all over Jeb Bush for declaring in an interview that Americans need to “work longer hours” for substantial economic growth to return.

The Republican presidential candidate was conducting a recorded interview with New Hampshire’s The Union-Leader and was answering a question about his tax plan, which he used as an opportunity to state his goals for economic growth.

“My aspiration for the country and I believe we can achieve it, is 4 percent growth as far as the eye can see,” Bush said. “Which means we have to be a lot more productive, workforce participation has to rise from its all-time modern lows. It means that people need to work longer hours and, through their productivity, gain more income for their families. That’s the only way we’re going to get out of this rut that we’re in.”

According to OECD data, U.S. workers average 1789 hours of work per year, above the global average for developed countries. Among those with full-time jobs the average work week is 47 hours, according to polling by Gallup, while for part-time workers the average is about 26 hours per week. According to the Department of Labor, about 6.5 million Americans are stuck in part-time rather than full-time jobs due to economic conditions. An aide told the AP that Bush’s intent was to highlight how many Americans have been working less than they want to due to President Obama’s policies.

“Under President Obama, we have the lowest workforce participation rate since 1977, and too many Americans are falling behind,” the statement said. “Only Washington Democrats could be out-of-touch enough to criticize giving more Americans the ability to work, earn a paycheck, and make ends meet.” The average hours worked of part-time workers has fallen sharply from just 15 years ago, something critics claim is partly due to Obamacare classifying a 30-hour job as “full time.” (RELATED: Obamacare’s Biggest Impacts: Americans Losing Hours, Losing Coverage)

Update: A transcript of the event forwarded to The Daily Caller News Foundation by a Bush campaign spokeswoman shows that Bush clarified his comments to New Hampshire reporters Wednesday night. When asked whether working “more hours” meant more Americans getting full-time work, Bush replied people needed to be “given the opportunity to work.”

“Incomes need to grow,” Bush said. “It’s not going to grow in an environment where the costs of doing business are so extraordinarily high here… If anyone is celebrating this anemic recovery, then they are totally out of touch. The simple fact is people are really struggling. So giving people a chance to work longer hours has got to be part of the answer. If not, you are going to see people lose hope. And that’s where we are today.”


Get the lazy, fat, do-nothing bureaucrats off their asses and force them to get a real job. OOPPSS! I forgot, they can't. In effect, a governemnt job is just another form welfare.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 27.

#5. To: buckeroo (#0)

What is most disappointing here is Bush's total lack of ideas.

Rather than asking the 50% who do work to work longer hours, unemployed people should be returned to work instead of getting endless checks and "food stamps". And the retirement age should be raised, say, a couple months per year until the minimum age is 65. Or 67.

Social Security was never intended to be a retirement plan lasting 20 years or more for most retirees. It was predicated on half of all payees dying before retirement and the majority who did retire collected 5-10 years on average.

To see real economic improvement, you have to raise the employment rate and the retirement age. I would give bonus points to any pol who just admits this fundamental but unpopular fact.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-07-09   13:27:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: TooConservative, buckeroo, All (#5)

Social Security was never intended to be a retirement plan lasting 20 years or more for most retirees. It was predicated on half of all payees dying before retirement and the majority who did retire collected 5-10 years on average.

Yet I and my employers on my behalf (in lieu of paying higher wagers to me) paid more into the SS system than I will ever get got, even if I live to 100.

SOSO  posted on  2015-07-09   17:14:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: SOSO, Too Conservative (#7)

Yet I and my employers on my behalf (in lieu of paying higher wagers to me) paid more into the SS system than I will ever get got, even if I live to 100.

Not true at all.

My employer and I have paid the maximum Social Security tax on me for the past 16 years, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. The amount has changed over the year, as the cap on the amount of the income taxed moves upward. In 1999, the cap was at $72,600. This year, the cap is $118,500.

Social Security tax is 6.2% from me, 6.2% from my employer. So, using 2015 as the measuring point (highest it's ever been), my employer and I pay a combined total of $14,694 per year.

If I were age 70 and retired right now, having paid into the system at the top rate for most of my working life, my monthly benefit would be $42,002 per year, which is $27,318 per year more out than I pay in this year.

Also, if I die first, my wife will get my Social Security until she dies.

And it will all be adjusted upwards over time for inflation.

Fact is, there is no investment program you could have done with that Social Security money that pays better, or that has better features (inflation adjustment and survivor benefits are huge advantages).

And if you get crippled between now and retirement, you get disability insurance. And if you die, you kids get survivors benefits.

Fact is, Social Security is an investment whose combined features cannot be purchased in the private sector at a reasonable price, or at all.

Add Medicare into the picture and it becomes even better.

Social Security will be the primary payor in your retirement, for your income, and for your medical costs, which will spiral upwards. Without Social Security, most people would be destitute in their old age.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-07-10   9:47:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Vicomte13, TooConservative (#16)

Not true at all.

It's totally true. You neglect the imputed interest rate that would be earned on what you and your employer "invests" into your SS account. Over a 30-50 year period of contributions that will much more than double the amount paid in. And what about those whose spouse also works and pays into SS? The surviving spouse is only entitled to the payment they have earned or just 1/2 of what the deceased spouse has earned, which ever is higher.

As for Medicare, I have private insurance which is primary over Medicare. It is unlikely that I will ever enroll in Medicare B or D. FYI we just had a super major medical event which to date has racked up over $300,000 of medical bills and Medicare hasn't paid one cent and will not pay anything in the future.

SOSO  posted on  2015-07-10   11:05:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: SOSO (#18)

It's totally true. You neglect the imputed interest rate that would be earned on what you and your employer "invests" into your SS account.

I did neglect that imputed interest. (I also neglected the taxation of the interest in any real account.)

This is an easy calculation. Actually, the amount I have paid in over my working life is easily determinable: I get that Social Security statement every year that says what I have paid in, and I can double that number for the employer contribution (which, lest we forget, is tax-deductible to the employer).

Then we look at the IRS imputed interest chart on long-term loans or, if you prefer, at the treasury rate, the bank deposit rate or CD rate during each year since 1981, when I started working and paying taxes.

One aspect of this investment is that it's a government entitlement, so the risk is the same level as treasuries: full faith and credit of the US government.

I guarantee you that after going through all that work, we'll discover that, no, the total will not "more than double the amount paid in". Especially not on a risk-adjusted basis.

Also, bank interest, CDs and bond interest is taxable, so we'd have to chop down your return every year for taxes. I suppose we could go ahead and consider that some of the money was invested in an IRA, but IRA's have upper- levels.

It all depends on how detailed you want the analysis.

I'm going to do it back of the envelope now, and demonstrate it.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-07-10   12:55:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: Vicomte13, TooConservative (#22)

It all depends on how detailed you want the analysis.

I'm going to do it back of the envelope now, and demonstrate it.

I want to consider all material aspects of the determination. I assure you that when you do the imputed interest calcualtion for a 50 year pay-in period it WILL more than double the contributions made by you and your empolyer(s).

If you are a white male with a life expectancy as of Oct. 2014 of 76.4 years and you retired at 70, you would collect the $42,002 per year you cited in your earlier post and you would have recieved $268,813 in SS payments. Let's assume that you didn't have to pay taxes on any portion of that amount. Let's also assume that you started paying into the SS system when you were 20 years old, or for 50 years. How much would you and your employer(s) have paid into the SS system in those 50 years? Then add the imputed interest earned in an qualified tax deferred IRA. Please get back to me when you complete your back of the envelope the calculation.

HINT: $268,813 divided by 50 is $5,376 total average SS contribution per year.

HINT: Use the rule of 72 which says that the interest rate times the number of years to double the invested amount to double is 72. So to double an invets of $1 in 50 the compounded interest would have to be 1.44%. To triple use the rule of 121, so to triple a $1 investment in 50 years the interest rate would have to be 2.42%. What has been the average interest rate on 30 year Government Bonds over the past 50 years? On tax exempt A+ 30 year Municipal bonds? The average annual return on the S&P 500? The average 10 year bank CD?

SOSO  posted on  2015-07-10   15:20:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 27.

        There are no replies to Comment # 27.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 27.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com