Pyramid or Ponzi?
I’m sympathetic to the superficial argument that Social Security isn’t in crisis, if only because I think the word crisis is a bit too strong to describe the predicted shortfalls of the scheme. Now having the government take 15% 7.5% of my income and give me, well, most likely nothing in return . . . that’s a crisis.
According to a Gallup poll, either Bush’s rhetoric was working or the Democrats’ counter-attack wasn’t:
A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, conducted Dec. 17-19 of last year, showed that 8 in 10 Americans feel it is extremely or very important that the president and Congress deal with Social Security reform in the year ahead. The poll also found the public evenly split on the idea of allowing Americans to put a percentage of their Social Security contributions into private investment accounts.
I’d like to see the correlation between support for reform and affinity for “privatization.“ I doubt this is a particularly salient issue as well, but obviously if Bush delivers for a highly interested constituency and offends a rather disinterested one, he scores big. But if SS ranks far down on the list of important issues, Democrats may be ok with their current strategy of answering, “What would you do instead?” by clasping their hands over their ears and singing “LA LA LA” loudly until someone changes the subject. But that just highlites how the Democratic Party is agenda-less and uninspired.
For those of you who’d like to learn more about Social Security, go read IMAO’s “Fun Facts About Social Security.”
34 Responses to “Pyramid or Ponzi?”
But that just highlites how the Democratic Party is agenda-less and uninspired.
There’s a difference between being agenda-less and not seeing a problem. After all, if it’s true that there isn’t a problem, then having an agenda is ipso facto a bad thing.
I think you can make a broader generalization about Democratic policy goals based upon their reaction to Bush’s SS push. The smart thing to do would be to say, “Look, this is part of Bush’s policy set X, which is wrong. We should be focusing instead on our policy set Y.” Only, there’s no policy set Y.
This post was interesting until it devolved into partisan namecalling in the last paragraphs. I’ve been reading ITA to avoid that tone — I can find it lots of other places if I want it.
We Democrats don’t really have any defined plan at this time that is as important as blocking Bush’s imperialist right wing agenda.
I think the “La, la, la” comment was meant as a joke, not as partisan namecalling.
Republican fascist pigs! Now that’s namecalling.
I simply disagree with your take on what the politics of opposition should look like. When the GOP did a masterful takedown of the Clinton health plan in the early 90s, they didn’t propose a rival health plan at all, and it would’ve been a political mistake for them to have put one forward at that time — to do so would have allowed the Dems to go back on the offensive, by moving the argument over to what they could argue was wrong with the GOP plan.
When one party can make the case that the status quo is better than the plan that the other party has put forward, then it’s politically foolish to try to launch a rival plan. This is doubly true, I would note, in political circumstances like the present, in which the party in power has made it exceedingly clear that the opposition will be pretty much locked out of legislation-writing process. If your rival plan, no matter how good, would have no chance of becoming law, then why stick out your political neck with such a plan? (You can interpret this last part of my comment as a direct response to Zach’s last comment — I’m arguing exactly that what he advocates for the Dems would not, in fact, be “the smart thing to do”.)
Zach, would you perhaps be willing to say (or just link to) a little on why you think that it’s likely that you won’t receive any social security benefits down the line? I don’t find that claim particularly plausible, but I’m sure you have your reasons for it, and I’d love to know what they are.
Pyramid or Ponzi?
Being as Social Security is neither illegal nor unsustainable, both salient characteristics of pyramid/ponzi schemes, I fail to see what the title of the thread has to do with its subject.
give me, well, most likely nothing in return
Since there’s nothing to indicate that SS will fail to pay your retirement, or earlier than that, your disability costs — save a default on its debt by the United States Government (in which case we’re in a whole lot of trouble that no amount of privatization can ever help) — I see nothing in the subject to support this either.
“What would you do instead?”
Since there’s nothing materially broken about Social Security, the best response (and the one us Democrats seem to be giving) is:
“if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
Got a problem with that?
greg
Isn’t more important to debate the forcible taking of earnings by the government? Of course, SS is not in crisis. All the government has to do is raise taxes to pay its needs. It can change the value of its currency. The 15% that was written at first is correct, because 7.5% comes from the employee and 7.5% comes from the employer. So, 15% of your gross earnings are taken away and given to Big Brother. The problem is that most Gen Xers and younger realize that once the Baby Boomers suck the well dry, either we will have to cut benefits or increase taxes or both.
I think the real reason some are against even slight privatization has to with control. Who controls what? By allowing someone partial control of their “retirement,” that enables them to possibly have more and to not take so much from other people. Some believe that he/she knows better how to spend someone else’s money.
As for the actual debate, I intend on investing as much as possible and not being beholden to Big Brother.
Barb, some people can’t handle satire.
Phil, first, I’d say that Bush’s push to reform SS is significantly different from HillaryCare (har). There is popular approval for reform if we are to believe the poll numbers, and the President’s proposal has at least half of the respondents on board, though the intensity of support/opposition is not apparent. By contrast, a significant portion of the population was strongly against Clinton’s healthcare proposal. I think a more accurate analog to the present situation would be the GOP “Eldercare” proposal in the 1960’s as an alternative to Medicare, though I haven’t looked up the data on public sentiment.
Second, I don’t think the Democrats have made the case that the status quo is better than the President’s proposal. First because we don’t know the specifics of the president’s plan. Second, because even though the persuasive argument is that SS isn’t in crisis, most people think it’s not that good of a program. There is a certain taint to it (hence the 80% support for reform).
Third, I do believe there is an incentive for the Democrats to put forth an alternative, not because it will influence the policy process but because it could influence public opinion. The Democrats could make a good PR campaign of saying, “The GOP are pursuing this foolish agenda, whereas if we were in power, we have this great proposal here. Look at what you are missing out on.” If 50% of the electorate aren’t supporting Bush’s “privatization,” this would be a good issue to consolidate support on. I qualified my post by saying the Democrats may ignore this if it isn’t a salient issue, but since the President has the bully pulpit, it’s not likely that the media will let the issue drop. (I also get the impression that the Dems haven’t put out any good talking points on the matter).
Finally, I’d make two assumptions: First, in the future, benefits will be cut, probably through means testing. Second, in the far future, I’ll have enough means to be denied benefits. And if my contributions aren’t returned to me at a rate higher than my discount rate (or even inflation), SS will be a loss, or effectively, not returned to me.
Zach, several counter-points. First of all..it seems you didn’t get the official memo, the word “Privatization” has been banned. You’re supposed to use “Personal accounts.” Anything using the word “Private” actually polls like garbage.
Secondly, I don’t know about that Gallup poll, but given the fact that it shows an absolutely overwhelming difference from almost every other poll I’ve seen, I’m inclined not to trust it. AARP came out with a poll yesterday, and actually did poll on the subject to start off (before they added in an element of the Push poll to it)
“Approximately four in 10 respondents initially favored private accounts,” the 35-million-member seniors’ organization said in a summary of its findings. “However, those who initially favored private accounts dropped off substantially once they were exposed to any of the consequences associated with implementation of private accounts.”
Zach, there’s no plan currently under consideration that will do anything at all about your not getting the money you want on your return, on the assumptions you offer. (I doubt that SS will get as means-tested to the degree that you suggest, but let’s work within your framework.) No plan that even smells remotely like it might cut the benefits of current or soon-to-be retirees has any political chance at all, so there will be no benefit cuts in the foreseeably future. As a result, we’re going to have to keep paying out benefits, either through (i) the payroll taxes, (ii) general revenues, or (iii) loans. Given the current state of the budget, (ii) just collapses into (iii). So, it’s either pay now with your SS tax, or pay later — plus interest — from your general revenue taxes. On the assumption that you’ll be doing pretty well for yourself income-wise, then, you can expect a much higher burden of taxes later to support the current and near-term retirees than you would if you continued having your SS taxes go right to them.
In general, I don’t understand how cavalier a lot of young conservatives are about the current astounding level of deficit & growing debt: if you think you’re going to be earning much more down the road than you are now, then it is very much in your interest to have the nation budget responsibly now, rather than hit you (& your larger future paycheck) with the loan repayments down the line.
How many of you pro-SS wackos out there would continue to put 15% of your gross income into the plan if you weren’t forced to do so? Do you really have that much faith in it?
It’s impossible for me to believe that you truly think that the SS plan is the best place for your money.
There is popular approval for reform if we are to believe the poll numbers,
If we believe the poll numbers, 70% of all americans thought we actually found WMDs in Iraq.
First, in the future, benefits will be cut, probably through means testing.
No basis, at all, for this assertion. First, there’s a small consensus that system may be indefinitely viable already with no adjustment whatsoever. Thus no need to either cut benefits or raise taxes.
Second, if it’s not, there’s a much larger consensus that the system can be made infinitely viable, with no cuts in benefits, through a small ( less than 1%) upward payroll tax increase, similar to the adjustment in the 1980s. The age demographics of the country are changing. Why shouldn’t the input parameters to SS change to match them?
Second, in the far future, I’ll have enough means to be denied benefits.
Or you won’t, as the generations from 1925-1955, learned. Hence the need for a recession/market/etc.-proof system like Social Security.
You’ve noticed that the stock market hasn’t returned a frigging dime in the past half-decade, haven’t you? And that there’s absolutely nothing of tangible value collaterlalizing the american economy any more?
Meanwhile inflation’s been running 2.5-3.5% and the dollar is in a freefall. This isn’t the right time to but putting our national retirement plan in the hands of a group of Wall Street smoothies.
greg
Greg,
First, there’s a small consensus that system may be indefinitely viable already with no adjustment whatsoever.
Would you be so nice as to provide a link for this claim? Thanks.
there’s a much larger consensus that the system can be made infinitely viable, with no cuts in benefits, through a small ( less than 1%) upward payroll tax increase
A 1% increase over what I’m paying now (so that the payroll tax would be 15.15%), or an increase of 1% of my gross pay (so that the tax is 16%). Big difference. In either case, why should I have to pay more into a lousy investment to make up for the fact that my parents’ generation aborted too many of my would-be peers.
You’ve noticed that the stock market hasn’t returned a frigging dime in the past half-decade, haven’t you?
Luckily, I plan to work for roughly 45 years, not 5.
And, actually, I just got my 401(k) statement for 2004. My rate of return was just over 8%. IIRC, 2003 was between -1 and +1%, and 2002 might have been as bad as -4%. So even in the “Bush economy,” I’ve been coming out about even with SS.
Say it with me, everybody: dollar-cost averaging.
Would you be so nice as to provide a link for this claim? Thanks.
Yes, you’ll find it in Paul Krugman’s column “The British Evasion” in the NYT. I believe he sources the trustees report and/or Thomas Healey but not having an online subscription, I can’t verify my memory.
You can find the background to the claim in http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/opeds/2004/healey_socialsecurity_wp_062504.htm — namely life expectancies aren’t increasing as we thought plus the forecasts of the pessimists are far too pessimistic.
A 1% increase over what I’m paying now (so that the payroll tax would be 15.15%
If you’re paying 14.15% then you need a new accountant. Total SS payroll tax is 12.4% of which, unless you’re self employed, you pay 6.2% — unless you make over $87,000 a year (in which case you pay less).
why should I have to pay more into a lousy investment to make up for the fact that my parents’ generation aborted too many of my would-be peers.
Good, gravy. Talk about overblown rhetoric. Not to mention the mother of all pyramid schemes.
I’ve been coming out about even with SS.
I assume you’re not disabled nor do you have any siblings or parents drawing disability, medicare, medicaid, or SS. Because that’s the only way in which you could make such a quantitative judgment.
BTW, SS returns nominally inflation-rates from the straight paygo aspect and (currently) 5.3% on the excess in the trust fund. That’s quite a bit better than the market over the past half decade and much better than the market in the period 1925-1955.
greg
JP, Eric: you’re both making the common mistake here of thinking of your SS taxes as somehow investments on your behalf. They aren’t. They are taxes collected to pay for current retirees (& disabled, etc.) So most of what you’re saying here is just plain besides the point, as to (e.g.) whether you could get a better rate of return from some other investment vehicle, since SS isn’t an investment vehicle in the first place.
Going back to the politics of it all for a minute: Zach, I think you may be misremembering how the Clinton health plan stuff all played out. It’s not like it was released out of nowhere, then immediately everyone hated it, and so it failed. Rather (_i_irc!), health care had been a big issue in the campaign, and the administration felt a big impetus to act on that issue. After the plan came out, there was a very energetic and well-funded campaign against it — and only then did it start to tank. At the time there was popular approval to do something about health care, but expert politicking by the GOP and various lobbies convinced a majority of the American people that this was not that something. Still a pretty close parallel to the current situation, I think. Also, I think you are conflating two possible readings of the Democratic response: the ‘lalala I can’t hear you’ non-response (which is what you have accused them of doing, and which I agree would not be politically advisable), and the ‘look, there just is no crisis’ response (which is much more what’s being said). And the politics of it all seem to be working out pretty well for the Dems so far, as seen, e.g., if you follow JMM’s cataloging of where the various members of Congress are falling.
Philosopher is exactly right. I don’t usually bring it up (because it further complicates a fairly complex (but not as complex as presented) issue) but you cannot compare SS to your 401(k) directly, nor to any standard equity or bond investment.
SS is a retirement plan plus disability insurance plus health insurance plus life insurance plus … all rolled into one. I’m 41 and if I am disabled tomorrow (beyond my broken leg) it will start paying me disability right away — I don’t have to worry that I’ve accrued enough capital in my private accounts for that.
Likewise it will pay survivor benefits to my children (something that happened to my sister when our father passed away, something that sustained an old girlfriend back in high school, etc.). It’s paying for my post-65-years-old mother’s medical insurance now, and would of my inlaws as well, if they weren’t drawing a military pension.
You can’t make a dollar comparison before you take out what it would cost you to privately cover all SS benefits like those above.
greg
Greg, fwiw, I was trying to make the case that you can’t make such a comparison, period — not that you can’t make such a comparison without taking other significant factors into play.
Well I think you can make the comparison, it’s just far far far more difficult to do than most, if not all, people are capable — which is probably your point.
With that, one final other point of departure — the retirement portion of SS is an unlimited term annuity underwritten by the most stable institution Wall St.’s never seen. That too is worth a percentage point or so over your average mutual fund. Again, the only way that SS can tank is if the entire frigging country tanks, and tanks in a way that would make the Great Depression look like the dot-com boom.
greg, in “not that I’m making any comparisons, mind you” mode
[comment edited in accordance with ITA terms of use]
As far as Eric’s take on his return versus SS, consider these numbers. Friday 14th was the fifth anniversary of the Dow Jones’ highest level ever. As of the close of the markets on that day the Dow was still 10% below that number. Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index is down 22% and the Wilshire 5000 is down 19% from their highs, achieved in March of 2000. Nasdaq is down 59%. Along those lines if you’d gotten in near the peak of the 1929 stock market you would get back where you were then in 1954. In 1964 the market went down again and it took until 1972 to recover.
Allan Sloan, in the article that provided the numbers I just referred to also cites some fairly compelling reasons to think that the historic rate of return on stocks won’t be coming back soon. If you’re interested:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6839166/site/newsweek/
Greg,
Thanks for the reference. I’ll take a look at that.
Total SS payroll tax is 12.4% of which, unless you’re self employed, you pay 6.2%
Well, Zach’s post claimed the total payroll tax is 15%. Perhaps he was incorrect. Anyway, you still didn’t answer my question of whether the tax would have to increase by 1% of what I’m currently paying or by one percentage point of gross salary. Because the latter is actually an 8% hike in the tax.
BTW, SS returns nominally inflation-rates from the straight paygo aspect and (currently) 5.3% on the excess in the trust fund.
Huh?? That sentence doesn’t parse.
For those of you pointing out that SS also pays disability and survivor beneifts, you are correct. But there are also private insurance plans which provide the same (I participate in both through my employer’s benefits program). There’s no reason we couldn’t leave the non-retirement aspect of SS in place as is, or perhaps give people the option of going with a private plan instead.
Finally, I nearly have to laugh when people try to cherry-pick historical dates to prove how poorly a theoretical market-index fund would have performed during those dates. First, exactly how does the wild speculative bubble prior to the 1929 crash have anything to do with today’s market? A heck of a lot has changed since then.
Second, even with major market downturns the only way to lose big is if you don’t reallocate your portfolio toward lesser risk as you approach retirement age. Yeah, I lost some money in my 401(k) after 9/11. But I’ve made a nice deal of money already on the funds I purchased right afterwards. Dollar-cost averaging. And if I were close to retirement in 2001, I’d have already moved a lot of my nest egg into bonds and such, so I wouldn’t have lost much if anything.
The point of the mention of how long it can take to recover market losses. In the same article Sloan says that by his calculations the indexing change that the unofficially floated Bush plan proposes would result in a cut of 46% of what the benefits otherwise would have been. In addition the original post and Eric’s post certainly seem to imply an approval for the idea of eliminating SS entirely. Given this belief among conservatives I’m not going to bet that the Bush proposal isn’t just a first move in this direction. So if there is NO safety net and someone doesn’t think to re-allocate their investment or comes up short for some other reason it would be easy in a prolonged downturn (even one not as severe as the Great Depression but almost as long) to come up short. Maybe even very short.
Anyway, you still didn’t answer my question of whether the tax would have to increase by 1%
~1% of your gross income up to a maximum of $88K. I.e. for a high-income individual like myself (income > $100K), I would see my payroll taxes increase by $88K * 1% = $880/year ($73/mo).
That’s less than half of my tax cut that I got under the Bush tax cuts. In other words, even with a 1% raise in SS taxes, I’d still be paying fewer net taxes than before the Bush tax cuts.
And that would fix SS forever
Huh?? That sentence doesn’t parse.
Social Security payouts are indexed to inflation (COLA). The Social Security Administration tells me it will pay me about $1200/mo when I retire. But it won’t. It will pay me $1200 in today’s dollars which will be a much larger dollar figure when I retire, depending on how inflation goes.
The excess that Social Security collects over what it has to pay out (currently ~$80 billion a year, and rising) is invested in a trust fund. That trust fund currently holds $1.5 trillion and is earning 5.3% in annual interest.
greg
So if there is NO safety net and someone doesn’t think to re-allocate their investment
IIRC, the most popular idea floating around would offer a certain set of funds to young workers, including more aggressive options, but offer a different set to workers nearing retirement, which would have more conservative investments. (Plus, most plans I’ve heard of would also allow people to stick with their low after-tax return from SS.)
Your hard-core libertarians might object to this as “nanny-statism,” but it seems reasonable to me.
Social Security payouts are indexed to inflation…The excess that Social Security collects…is earning 5.3% in annual interest
That’s nice, but frankly irrelevant to this discussion. The important figure is an individual’s effective rate of return. The Social Security Administration says people under 30 can expect 1.5 to 2 percent after inflation. You can easily double that with a 401(k).
IIRC, the most popular idea floating around would offer a certain set of funds to young workers, including more aggressive options, but offer a different set to workers nearing retirement, which would have more conservative investments.
How is that different from today? There’s nothing preventing someone from investing in the market irrespective of their age. Every investment counselor worth her salt recommends that people approach retirement with a mixed bag of assets including social security, private savings, and pensions. As far as I can tell, you’re proposing eliminating one of the legs of the stool — social security — in favor of inflating another — private savings. That’s not a balanced approach.
The important figure is an individual’s effective rate of return. The Social Security Administration says people under 30 can expect 1.5 to 2 percent after inflation. You can easily double that with a 401(k).
Extrapolating today’s low inflation rates into the future (not realistic, but I’ll do it anyways) that implies a return of roughly 5% from Social Security — i.e. roughly equal to a long-term CD (and a little bit safer) plus it comes with disability insurance, medical insurance, etc. “for free.”
The historic long-term return on bonds is 6% and that on equities is 10.2% (that’s across the board. Indexes like the S&P and Dow have done better, but with more volatility). Of course neither of them come with disability, health care, etc. thrown in “for free” and there are these disquieting periods of several decades every now and then when they return far below those rates.
Most investment counselors will recommend (depending on one’s age and risk tolerance) a roughly 10-30/70-90 mix of bonds/equities in ones portfolio generating about 7% a year in income. That’s only 2% above your numbers, a whole lot less secure, and with a whole lot fewer bells n’ whistles.
Plus the fact that we’ll never see 10+% sustained returns from the market again, at least not in our or our children’s lifetimes.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11377-2005Jan15.html
Also, T Rowe Price, has a nice primer “Why Investors Should Have Modest Expectations for Equity Returns” that provides some of the more technical underpinnings for the above:
http://www.troweprice.com/
In it, they point out that the averages for equity returns are just that, averages, and that even long term that equity returns can be quite volatile:
“Even if you expect equity returns to average 7% to 9% over the next five to 10 years, you may get a significant portion of the return in a very short period. You could have years of 20% returns or years of flat or negative returns”
greg
Every investment counselor worth her salt recommends that people approach retirement with a mixed bag of assets including social security, private savings, and pensions.
But when an advisor today says to rely on those three sources of retirement income, they are certainly not endorsing social security (why endorse something that’s currently compulsory?) In fact, in most cases they’re stressing that you can’t rely on SS alone. I’m sure we could both find advisors who endorse our positions on SS, so let’s not even go there.
that implies a return of roughly 5% from Social Security
Where are you getting this 5% figure when the SSA itself gives an optimistic outlook of 1.5-2%?
Where are you getting this 5% figure when the SSA itself gives an optimistic outlook of 1.5-2%?
From you. You wrote that SSA returns 1.5-2% after inflation. Inflation in 2004, IIRC, was 3.3%. 3.3%+2% = 5.3% return.
BTW, the article you cited (written by an obviously biased anti-SS demagogue, not that that has anything to do with anything) noted that 401(k)s had an average return of 4% before inflation.
And, yes, no investment counselor spends a whole lot of time pushing SS. But why would they? They don’t make any money off of it.
greg
From the “demagogue”’s article:
After inflation, the average return on a 401(k) was about 4 percent.
Perhaps you should have read the article a little closer, rather that try to come up with ad hominem attacks. If we want to compare apples to apples, then, it’s 5.3% for SS and 7.3% for the average 401(k)* before tax and 2% for SS and 4% for the average 401(k) after tax.
And, yes, no investment counselor spends a whole lot of time pushing SS…They don’t make any money off of it.
[rolls eyes] Ah, we’ve finally gotten to the crux of the Democrats’ argument against SS reform: the GOP just wants to line investment brokers’ pockets. I have no interest in debating conspiracy theories.
*note: this 4% return was for the 10-year period ending in 2002…right after the perfect storm of the dot-com bust, corporate scandals, and 9/11 had done its work on the stock market.
The GOP doesn’t want to line investment broker’s pockets? Somebody better get Donnie Luskin on the line.
greg, somewhat amazed that letting the fox guard the henhouse door and predicting the outcome suddenly elevates one to a whackjob conspiracy nut. On, the other hand, the GOP is the party asserting that gravity is just a theory.
On, the other hand, the GOP is the party asserting that gravity is just a theory.
Um, what??? On second thought, don’t answer that. It can’t be anything but an off-topic rant. Let’s see if I remember how this sophomoric argument is supposed to go…
“Republicans want to steal from the poor and give to the rich!”
“Oh yeah, well, Democrats want socialism–if not downright communism–and are in favor of appeasing terrorists!”
“$#%& you!!”
“No, $#%& you!!!”
Eric,
With all due respect, you’re the one who first took this off-topic with your ad hominem about “conspiracy theories.”
“The villany you teach me I will execute, and it shall go hard, but I will better the instruction.” Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice
greg
Greg,
With all due respect, you need to learn what ad hominem means. Attacking Glassman’s column by calling him “an obviously biased anti-SS demagogue” without refuting any of his claims is an ad hominem because you’re attacking the man, not his argument.
I called you on your silly, unprovable assertion that people who want to reform SS secretly just want to funnel more money to investment brokers. That was neither off-topic nor ad hominem.
I’m happy to let you have the last word as long as you don’t try to accuse me of something I didn’t do.
First, I didn’t refute any of his claims nor did I attack his column. Indeed, I respected the column as well as his claims and, in fact, used them in good faith as the basis of my argument. You might want to re-read what I wrote.
That doesn’t change the fact that he is an anti-SS demagogue any more than it changes the fact that he’s a brunette (gosh, I hope my memory’s right on that one).
Second, my assertion that part of the desire to privatize SS comes from a desire to funnel more money into private equity markets, with the attendant spiff from brokerage fees, inflated stock prices, etc. is neither “silly” nor “unprovable.”
There are plenty of motives that your side ascribes to my side. Most of them have at least a grain of truth. Many of them are completely true. It’s time for your side to stop denying that, although it may have its ups and downs on the way, everyone can tell that a piece of paper dropped out of a 10th-floor window will eventually hit the ground.
“Some people call you elite, I call you my base. ” President Bush acting all silly and unprovable.
greg
For the record…
What an impressive crowd: the haves, and the have-mores. Some people call you the elite, I call you my base. –President Bush at the Al Smith memorial dinner, a fundraiser for Catholic hospitals.
Also in attendance was Al Gore, who quipped: “I never exaggerate. You can ask Tipper or any of my 11 daughters.”