Bush Warns of Social Security Bankruptcy

[emad]

Guardian

Saturday January 15, 2005 3:16 PM

By TERENCE HUNT

AP White House Correspondent

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush said Saturday that Social Security ``is on the road to bankruptcy'' and unable to pay promised benefits to future generations, raising the stakes in a major political battle with Democrats.

Bush used his weekly radio address to try to build support for his plan to allow workers to divert part of their Social Security payroll taxes into private investment accounts. Democrats accuse him of exaggerating the problem to sell a plan that would scale back Social Security.

Bush said the cost of fixing the system grows larger each year, and he quoted Social Security trustees as saying that waiting just one year would add $600 billion to the price of a solution.

``If we do not act now, government will eventually be left with two choices: dramatically reduce benefits or impose a massive economically ruinous tax increase,'' the president said. ``Leaving our children with such a mess would be a generational betrayal.''

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4735105,00.html

[NVMojo]

1. cuz he spent it all!!! And doesn't want to pay us back!!!

Do we believe this lie too? This can't be as hard to crack as the WMD code of idiocy....

[papau]

55. 21 facts Centerists must forget because they prove Bush a liar

21 reasons/facts w/ links on how Bush;s Soc Sec Plan is based on lies

21 REASONS WHY PRESIDENT BUSH'S PLAN FOR SOCIAL SECURITY IS A BAD IDEA AND IN FACT IS MISLEADING :

(WAYS TO INNOCULATE YOURSELF AGAINST THE ONCOMING MEDIA BLITZ):

A story of how Social Security is not like a 'pig in a python' (but that's what Bush and company are telling you)We are being scammed to pay for the war on Iraq & associated deficits


You will notice that points have references; see those references at the end of these points. This is not intended to be an 'academic presentation'; thus, the URL's which you can check for yourself.



1. WHO WANTS THE CHANGE AND HOW WILL THEY 'FRAME' THE ISSUE? Wall Street wants privatization in order reap a windfall profit. Everyone else should be very suspicious. If the stock market goes down, your benefits go down.

This is what you will hear from Bush and company: "right now we are on an unsustainable course." They say, 'its unfixable as it is.' They will say: 'the problem will just grow and grow as more and more boomers come on board to obtain their Social Security benefits.' They will say: "the trust fund is empty.

Quite the contrary: Social Security funds are actually increasing and....and will actually expand for 10 more years because of the interest it receives from Treasury bonds. Could it be that Bush and company are worried because, "the government has already used the annual surpluses to finance its operating deficits." (Edmund L. Andrews; The New York Times ; Monday 10 January 2005)

That's right: Bush and company have used the surplus which usually accumulates along with the principal money in order to do something about the deficit that they have created over the past 4 years.



2. EVERYONE SEEMS TO BE SURPRISED: WAS THIS 'TWEAKING' OF SOCIAL SECURITY MEANT TO TAKE PLACE PERIODICALLY? : YES "What people forget is that the baby boom is not like a pig in the python," said Kent Smetters, an associate professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and a former senior official in Mr. Bush's Treasury Department. "If you just balance it over the next 75 years, it just means we have to come back and do the same thing all over again about 15 years from now," Professor Smetters said. (Edmund L. Andrews; The New York Times ; Monday 10 January 2005)



3. WHY ARE WE BEING TOLD WE NEED TO 'DO SOMETHING ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY'? The nation's baby boomers start to retire at the end of this decade and relatedly the cost of retirement benefits is expected to rise much faster than payroll taxes from active workers. Obviously, payments become higher with each generation of retirees, even after accounting for inflation. By 2042, the trust fund will have used up its reserves and payroll taxes will cover only about 70 percent of the promised benefits.


4. WON'T WE HAVE TO PAY FOR CHANGING TO PRIVATE ACCOUNTS?? HOW MUCH WOULD IT COST US? : the Bush administration deems the current system, with its average monthly benefit of $955, as too generous (that's less than $12,000/ year). The Bush Administration wants to cut benefits by more than 40% to help pay the trillions of dollars that would be needed for the creation and maintenance of private accounts. http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=41481

This doesn't make sense given that now Social Security is the most efficient government system ever instigated, utilizing only 1% of the overall funds to manage the monthly Social Security payments for millions of people. More than 99 percent of Social Security's revenues go toward benefits, and less than 1 percent for overhead. The Social Security System is legally separate from the rest of the budget. Bush wants to discontinue that. This will make it difficult it not impossible to track in terms of is the Social Security money really being used for other purposes like making war on Iraq.

Where's all that money right now? "The Social Security trust fund has accumulated more than $1.5 trillion in reserves, held in Treasury bonds." (Edmund L. Andrews; The New York Times ; Monday 10 January 2005)



5. WHO IN BUSH'S ADMINISTRATION IS DRIVING THE MATTER? Karl Rove, Bush's right hand man: He is attempting to convince the public that Social Security is 'heading for an iceberg." )http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6791950 )


4. WHY WOULD KARL ROVE WANT TO PRIVATIZE SOCIAL SECURITY? Rove sees it as : “one of the most important conservative undertakings of modern times,....“We need to establish in the public mind a key fiscal fact: right now we are on an unsustainable course,” the e-mail said. “That reality needs to be seared into the public consciousness; it is the precondition to authentic reform.....government and toward giving greater power and responsibility to individuals,” said Wehner, the director of White House Strategic Initiatives. " Who is this Wehner? : Peter Wehner, the deputy to White House political director Karl Rove. Thus, Rove is attempting to continue the line of 'getting government out of your lives' which is a recipe to allow corporations unbridled power and individuals no retirement through Social Security. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/679195


5. WHAT STRATEGIES ARE BEING UTILIZED IN ORDER TO CONVINCE THE PUBLIC OF THE NEED FOR PRIVATIZATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY?: "The administration has suggested that it would be justified in borrowing some $2 trillion to establish private accounts because doing so would head off $10 trillion in future
Social Security liabilities. It's bad enough that the $10 trillion is a highly inflated figure, intended to overstate a problem that is reasonably estimated at $3.7 trillion or
even considerably less. Worse are the true dimensions of the administration's proposed ploy, which were made painfully clear in a memo that was leaked to the press last week. Written in early January by Peter Wehner.".....(Rove's right hand person):
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/10/opinion/10mon1.html?ex=1106369074&ei=1&en=81cd3e12f07545a0

6. WHAT WOULD ACTUALLY TAKE PLACE RE: THIS PRIVATIZATION EFFORTS PER BUSH/ ROVE / THE REPUBLICANS? : "Revamping the system to allow investment accounts would not shore up the future finances and would make the financial picture worse. The administration is considering borrowing $1 trillion to $2 trillion to continue paying benefits to current retirees while tax revenue is diverted into personal accounts, called transition costs, Wehner's e mail said (per this article, this e mail was verified by the White House). Separately, to address the future financial shortfall, the administration is looking at plans to cut future promised benefits, by 46 percent in some cases, with investments expected to make up the difference." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/679195


7. WHO ELSE UNDERLINES THAT THIS IS WHAT WOULD ACTUALLY OCCUR? : " The real impact of President Bush's Social Security privatization scheme: massive cuts in promised benefits. The White House is expected to propose a new system of calculating Social Security benefits called "price indexing." The technical change would mean "cutting promised benefits by nearly a third in the coming decades" – with even deeper cuts in the future. For example, if the "price indexing" change is made, "a retiree in 2075 would receive 54 percent of the benefits now promised." David C. John, a Social Security expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation called the proposal "very much like sticking your hand in a wasp nest.": American Progress Action Fund" <[e-mail]


8. WHAT ARE SOME POINTS THAT YOU MIGHT EXPECT TO HEAR FROM BUSH AND THE REPUBLICANS? Talk about: PRICE INDEXING: The current method of calculating Social Security benefits is adjusted to reflect the standard of living when a person retires. That means when your benefits are calculated based on your average earnings, the salary you made 25 years ago is adjusted upwards to reflect the overall rise in wages (wage growth) since that time. The "price indexing" plan, expected to be proposed by Bush, would make that adjustment based on the rise of consumer prices – essentially the inflation rate. Since wages rise much faster than inflation, that means your newly adjusted salary will be lower. The end result is far lower benefits for every new generation of retirees. If this system had been in place since Social Security's inception, people today would be retiring with a benefit tied to the living standard of the 1930s, when 40 percent of households lacked indoor plumbing.: [e-mail]


9. WHAT ELSE CAN WE EXPECT TO COME OUT WAY RE: THIS PUSH FOR PRIVATIZATION? : You will hear talk about how it will be cheaper in the long-run to privatize at least part of Social Security. Specifically, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan claims, "The cost is $10 trillion if we do nothing. So what you're talking about would be a significant savings over those costs." There are two problems with this argument. First, the $10 trillion figure grossly distorts the modest long-range deficit of the Social Security program by projecting that shortfall over eternity. (There is no shortfall at all until 2052. Projections beyond 2052, obviously, are extremely unreliable.) Second, and more fundamentally, "borrowing $2 trillion to fund individual accounts does nothing to reduce Social Security's long-term deficit." Under the Bush plan the long-term deficit is reduced through deep benefit cuts.:
mailto: [e-mail]

10. WHAT ARE SOME OTHER MATTERS ASSOCIATED WITH RETIREMENT SAVINGS THAT WILL BE BOUGHT UP? The Thrift Savings Plan: what is it land what might be the downsides of such a model, which could be part of the Rovian onslaught?
the Thrift Savings Plan could serve as a possible model for personal investment accounts in Social Security.
Numerous readers said the two programs are unrelated and that the TSP, which relies on federal payroll systems for its basic operation, cannot be replicated on a scale as large as Social Security. Others said a column about the plan failed to stress that the TSP is a voluntary savings program that supplements Social Security, a tax-based program. Cavanaugh's paper (The paper, "Feasibility of Social Security Individual Accounts," was published by the AARP Public Policy Institute. AARP is opposing Bush's plan), for example, says that personal accounts in Social Security will cost more to manage than those in the TSP, in part because the TSP can rely on hundreds of federal agencies to administer payroll deductions and provide retirement planning and other services.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61607-2005Jan9.html?referrer=email

11. SO THE THRIFT SAVINGS PLAN APPEARS TO WORK FOR LARGER PERSONAL INVESTMENT ACCOUNTS, YES? The paper also points out that TSP operates on a progressive fee system (usually 60 cents per $1,000 account balance) so that holders of the higher account balances absorb part of the cost of maintaining smaller accounts. Such a fee system would not work in Social Security because too many accounts would be small, the paper contends. Social Security relies on the government to absorb inflation and market risks, while the TSP shifts those risks to individual investors, Cavanaugh writes. "Attempts to combine these two fundamentally different programs are like mating a bear with a bee -- somebody is going to get hurt," he concludes.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61607-20 ...


12. WHY DOES WALL STREET WANT THE CHANGE? In the background, beyond private accounts, are various proposals to cut guaranteed Social Security
benefits in the future.


13. BUT WE WILL NEVER HAVE ANOTHER DEPRESSION AS IN 1929: wrong: In 1973-74, the stock
market lost 48 percent of its value. The stock market is a very dangerous place to put money



14. WHO DOES NOT WANT THE CHANGE? (1) AARP, the nation's largest seniors organization, is coming out
strongly against President Bush's plan to allow private individual accounts
within Social Security. (2) On January 10, 2005, a NY Times Opinion piece stated this: "In this and other ways, the administration is manipulating
information - a tacit, yet devastating, acknowledgement, we believe, that an informed public would reject privatizing Social Security."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/10/opinion/10mon1.html?ex=1106369074&ei=1&en=81cd3e12f07545a0

15. HOW MUCH WOULD IT COST TO PRIVATIZE SOCIAL SECURITY? transitioning to private accounts could cost $2 trillion. See above information also.


16. TO REVIEW, WHERE WOULD THAT MONEY COME FROM? our taxes will have to be increased to make Bush's proposed plan work.


17. THEY TELL US THAT SOCIAL SECURITY IS BROKE OR GOING BROKE?: With all the clamoring about Social Security, a simple fact has been obscured: the Social Security budget is currently running a surplus; [e-mail]


18. OTHER COUNTRIES MUST HAVE SOCIAL SECURITY AND MAYBE THOSE ARE BETTER? wrong: Chile's system, management fees are around 20 times as high. A privatized system will take money from your Social Security check.


19. SHOULD YOU BE WORRIED THAT YOU WILL NOT HAVE SOCIAL SECURITY? Nothing is going to change, in terms of benefits, for people near your retirement age.


20. WHO TAXED SOCIAL SECURITY TO BEGIN WITH? Ronald Reagan, a Republican, began the taxation on Social Security in 1983.


21. IF WE ARE GOING TO 'FIX IT' HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT TO DO AS RELATED TO WHAT HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PAST TO 'FIX' IT? "If you compare its position now with its position at the time of the last reforms in 1977 and 1983, it's clearly better," Professor Diamond said. "Even then, it was readily fixed without radical reforms, and it's obvious that can be done again." (a professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a co-author of the book "Saving Social Security.")





There is no Social Security crisis, just as there were no weapons of mass destruction. Social Security has provided a lifeline to millions of Americans with
millions of checks, and in more than 60 years has never missed a payment—and this track record can continue. Social Security is basically a sound system
that can meet 100 percent of its obligations for the next 39 years, and with responsible changes it can continue to do so indefinitely.

"Social Security is not a crisis for which enormous borrowing, huge benefit
cuts and risky private accounts are a solution. Rather,
it's a financial problem of manageable proportions,
solvable without new borrowing by a combination of modest
benefit cuts and tax increases that could be distributed
fairly and phased in over several decades, while
guaranteeing a basic level of inflation-proof income for
life."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/10/opinion/10mon1.html?ex=1106369074&ei=1&en=81cd3e12f07545a0

And don't forget: It remains a fact that 30% of the votes in this national election were cast, and 80% of the votes were compiled, by three private companies, owned and controlled by conservative Republicans.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/05/01/12_give.html



REFERENCES:




Edmund L. Andrews; The New York Times ; Monday 10 January 2005:

HTtp://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=41481

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6791950 )


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/10/opinion/10mon1.html?ex=1106369074&ei=1&en=81cd3e12f07545a0


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61607-2005Jan9.html?referrer=email

[e-mail]

[chomskysright]

79. and two more points added to that compendium

I created the 21 point compendium on the basis of accumulated info; thanks for passing that around: please use it however you see fit.

here's two more as associated with recent Bush town meeting heavily scripted talk:


4. IS SOCIAL SECURITY GOING BUST (FOR THOSE IN THEIR 20'S NOW)": We are being told by Bush (week ending January 15, 2005) that the system is ' going bankrupt.' This is a lie. "The facts: The Social Security system cannot go "bankrupt," for it has no creditors. By law, the trustees will continue to pay reduced benefits even if the trust fund is exhausted. Payroll taxes will continue to come in and benefits will continue to be paid. According to the trustees' intermediate economic forecast (neither doom nor boom), the trust fund will be able to pay about 73 percent of scheduled benefits in 2042 and about 68 percent of scheduled benefits in 2078. http://www.dailyhowler.com/

Bush, week ending January 15, 2005, stated: "Bush: "Most younger people in America think they'll never see a dime."
The facts: Social Security says younger people will see a lot more than a dime. Their retirement benefits–even under a "flat-bust" system–will be significantly higher than today's benefits in real terms. http://www.dailyhowler.com/ For low-income Americans, currently scheduled benefits for those who retire in 2080 are $19,906 per year in 2004 dollars. If Social Security can pay only 68 percent of those benefits, that would be $13,536 per year, compared with benefits of $8,804 for low-income retirees who retired last year. For the highest earners, Social Security is currently promising $53,411 per year for those who retire in 2080 (or $36,319 per year if Social Security can pay only 68 percent). Current maximum benefits are $21,891 per year for those who retired last year.

[radwriter0555]

72. right. found those wmds yet? oh sorry, you LIED about those too.

fukc you, bush. You're just a know-nothing, pandering liar. Why should we trust you?

Oh, sorry, I was projecting.

[brokensymmetry]

2. From the man who sold us the war in Iraq

and WMD.

Why should I believe a word he says?

Bush said the cost of fixing the system grows larger each year, and he quoted Social Security trustees as saying that waiting just one year would add $600 billion to the price of a solution.


Yeah, and the Iraqi people will shower us with flowers. Riiiight.

[radric]

4. As I understand it..

the SS system is fine until around 2042. It needs some adjustments there isn't much debate about that from either party to compensate for the shortfalls then. But what is this desperate plan to shift money to private accounts? Wall Street doesn't have enough money to skim?

[brokensymmetry]

14. I have a suspicion on this.

But what is this desperate plan to shift money to private accounts? Wall Street doesn't have enough money to skim?

A nasty suspicion. First, they set up the private accounts. Then, all the lemmings rush in, driving stocks up. PFC (President of False Claims) * then claims that the program is a great success! The market is up, and everyone is happy! Due to the wealth effect, people feel great!

Which sets them up to win the whole thing AGAIN in 2008.

Of course, at some point, the balloon collapses. By then, they'll have so much power it won't matter.

[UpInArms]

21. see my post #20 - it validates the year 2042

and beyond

[carolinalady]

49. Yes I have heard the same thing by many reputable economists

This is the Bush way--create a crisis that does not exist so he can brain wash everyone and get his way. Spoiled Rotten Rich Kid Syndrome again.

[KansDem]

53. Think he will give us the "Social Security will be broke in 45 minutes"

shtick?

Really, though. I don't know how ANYONE can take this liar seriously...

"George W. Bush: He will fix Social Security like he fixed Iraq"

[Donailin]

74. good one

I expect bells and whistles as time goes on though. Hair on fire and all that.

[BR_Parkway]

3. Why don't we do a test program - forfeit all Congress and Presidential

salaries for the next 4 year. Put that lump sum into the market and see where it stands at the end of Shrub's term. Then people could judge for themselves if it's something they want to do or not.

[Divernan]

11. Absolutely BRILLIANT suggestion!

But I'm not going to hold my breath for that to happen.

[TahitiNut]

34. Good one. How about tying Congressional pensions ...

... to a specific multiple of full Social Security benefits? I can envision a 'benefit statement' that says something like: "No Executive, Senate, or Congressional monthly pension payment shall exceed 10 times the same month's full individual retirement benefit under the Social Security system."

[americanstranger]

38. I set up an online petition in the name of TBTM.

Gave you a shout-out on TBTM for the wonderful idea, and sort of set the ground rules for how it should be done.

http://web.takebackthemedia.com/geeklog/public_html/article.php?story=20050115171203878

The petition is here:

http://www.petitiononline.com/tbtm2005/petition.html

Let's see them put their money where their mouths are.

Thank you for the brainstorm. Let's call their bluff on this.

-as

[madrchsod]

5. he never tells the truth

i`ve known a few people in my life that never told the truth and i never thought the american people were so naive that they would actually elect such a person as president. sometimes i`m just ashamed to be an american.

[yinkaafrica]

25. I'm still trying to figure out how the Anti-Christ became president

He is as evil a man as ever walked the earth.
And his motives are transparent as glass.

[VegasWolf]

64. but, I never thought the anti-christ would be so dumb. n/t

[NV Whino]

6. He's worried about leaving our children a mess?

LOL

:crazy:

[Ms_Mary]

8. Slightly ironic. nt

[Ms_Mary]

7. With fewer and fewer jobs offering retirement, this really sucks

I work in a small business. I have no retirement save the small amount I'm able to contribute to my IRA. It will not be enough to live on. Sure, I hope that business takes off and my income increases so I can invest money for retirement, but chances are, I'll need that supplemental income. It probably won't be there.

[givemebackmycountry]

9. I heard the pukes on MSNBC reporting this early this morning

LIAR!

YOU MEALY MOUTHED, THIEVING, LIAR!!!!!

Will someone, somewhere in a position of power please call this ass what he is so that everyone can hear it!

He is a LIAR! Anyone who supports this is a LIAR!

I hope this is still the third rail it's always been and I hope he gets flattened by the oncoming train and is rendered impotent for the rest of his miserable, unethical 2nd term.

LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Lefty48197]

10. The non-partisan CBO says SS is solvent for up to 50 years.

Who the hell is Bush listening to?

[radric]

12. Wall Street n/t

[0007]

31. Let's be logical and think about this one!

1. Nostradamus

2. Wall Street Brokers

3. God

How does number 2 sound?

[chomskysright]

42. here's logic: 21 reasons why bush's SS plan sucks

Sorry for dupe: I have repeatedly moved this around, this compendium, in order to keep that Echo chamber cranked: Fox CAN be out-foxed. use this however you like.



21 REASONS WHY PRESIDENT BUSH'S PLAN FOR SOCIAL SECURITY IS A BAD IDEA AND IN FACT IS MISLEADING :
(WAYS TO INNOCULATE YOURSELF AGAINST THE ONCOMING MEDIA BLITZ):
A story of how Social Security is not like a 'pig in a python' (but that's what Bush and company are telling you)
We are being scammed to pay for the war on Iraq & associated deficits


You will notice that points have references; see those references at the end of these points. This is not intended to be an 'academic presentation'; thus, the URL's which you can check for yourself.



1. WHO WANTS THE CHANGE AND HOW WILL THEY 'FRAME' THE ISSUE? Wall Street wants privatization in order reap a windfall profit. Everyone else should be very suspicious. If the stock market goes down, your benefits go down.

This is what you will hear from Bush and company: "right now we are on an unsustainable course." They say, 'its unfixable as it is.' They will say: 'the problem will just grow and grow as more and more boomers come on board to obtain their Social Security benefits.' They will say: "the trust fund is empty.

Quite the contrary: Social Security funds are actually increasing and....and will actually expand for 10 more years because of the interest it receives from Treasury bonds. Could it be that Bush and company are worried because, "the government has already used the annual surpluses to finance its operating deficits." (Edmund L. Andrews; The New York Times ; Monday 10 January 2005)

That's right: Bush and company have used the surplus which usually accumulates along with the principal money in order to do something about the deficit that they have created over the past 4 years.



2. EVERYONE SEEMS TO BE SURPRISED: WAS THIS 'TWEAKING' OF SOCIAL SECURITY MEANT TO TAKE PLACE PERIODICALLY? : YES "What people forget is that the baby boom is not like a pig in the python," said Kent Smetters, an associate professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and a former senior official in Mr. Bush's Treasury Department. "If you just balance it over the next 75 years, it just means we have to come back and do the same thing all over again about 15 years from now," Professor Smetters said. (Edmund L. Andrews; The New York Times ; Monday 10 January 2005)



3. WHY ARE WE BEING TOLD WE NEED TO 'DO SOMETHING ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY'? The nation's baby boomers start to retire at the end of this decade and relatedly the cost of retirement benefits is expected to rise much faster than payroll taxes from active workers. Obviously, payments become higher with each generation of retirees, even after accounting for inflation. By 2042, the trust fund will have used up its reserves and payroll taxes will cover only about 70 percent of the promised benefits.


4. WON'T WE HAVE TO PAY FOR CHANGING TO PRIVATE ACCOUNTS?? HOW MUCH WOULD IT COST US? : the Bush administration deems the current system, with its average monthly benefit of $955, as too generous (that's less than $12,000/ year). The Bush Administration wants to cut benefits by more than 40% to help pay the trillions of dollars that would be needed for the creation and maintenance of private accounts. http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=41481

This doesn't make sense given that now Social Security is the most efficient government system ever instigated, utilizing only 1% of the overall funds to manage the monthly Social Security payments for millions of people. More than 99 percent of Social Security's revenues go toward benefits, and less than 1 percent for overhead. The Social Security System is legally separate from the rest of the budget. Bush wants to discontinue that. This will make it difficult it not impossible to track in terms of is the Social Security money really being used for other purposes like making war on Iraq.

Where's all that money right now? "The Social Security trust fund has accumulated more than $1.5 trillion in reserves, held in Treasury bonds." (Edmund L. Andrews; The New York Times ; Monday 10 January 2005)



5. WHO IN BUSH'S ADMINISTRATION IS DRIVING THE MATTER? Karl Rove, Bush's right hand man: He is attempting to convince the public that Social Security is 'heading for an iceberg." )http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6791950)


4. WHY WOULD KARL ROVE WANT TO PRIVATIZE SOCIAL SECURITY? Rove sees it as : “one of the most important conservative undertakings of modern times,....“We need to establish in the public mind a key fiscal fact: right now we are on an unsustainable course,” the e-mail said. “That reality needs to be seared into the public consciousness; it is the precondition to authentic reform.....government and toward giving greater power and responsibility to individuals,” said Wehner, the director of White House Strategic Initiatives. " Who is this Wehner? : Peter Wehner, the deputy to White House political director Karl Rove. Thus, Rove is attempting to continue the line of 'getting government out of your lives' which is a recipe to allow corporations unbridled power and individuals no retirement through Social Security. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/679195


5. WHAT STRATEGIES ARE BEING UTILIZED IN ORDER TO CONVINCE THE PUBLIC OF THE NEED FOR PRIVATIZATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY?: "The administration has suggested that it would be justified in borrowing some $2 trillion to establish private accounts because doing so would head off $10 trillion in future
Social Security liabilities. It's bad enough that the $10 trillion is a highly inflated figure, intended to overstate a problem that is reasonably estimated at $3.7 trillion or
even considerably less. Worse are the true dimensions of the administration's proposed ploy, which were made painfully clear in a memo that was leaked to the press last week. Written in early January by Peter Wehner.".....(Rove's right hand person): http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/10/opinion/10mon1.html?ex=1106369074&ei=1&en=81cd3e12f07545a0


6. WHAT WOULD ACTUALLY TAKE PLACE RE: THIS PRIVATIZATION EFFORTS PER BUSH/ ROVE / THE REPUBLICANS? : "Revamping the system to allow investment accounts would not shore up the future finances and would make the financial picture worse. The administration is considering borrowing $1 trillion to $2 trillion to continue paying benefits to current retirees while tax revenue is diverted into personal accounts, called transition costs, Wehner's e mail said (per this article, this e mail was verified by the White House). Separately, to address the future financial shortfall, the administration is looking at plans to cut future promised benefits, by 46 percent in some cases, with investments expected to make up the difference." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/679195


7. WHO ELSE UNDERLINES THAT THIS IS WHAT WOULD ACTUALLY OCCUR? : " The real impact of President Bush's Social Security privatization scheme: massive cuts in promised benefits. The White House is expected to propose a new system of calculating Social Security benefits called "price indexing." The technical change would mean "cutting promised benefits by nearly a third in the coming decades" – with even deeper cuts in the future. For example, if the "price indexing" change is made, "a retiree in 2075 would receive 54 percent of the benefits now promised." David C. John, a Social Security expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation called the proposal "very much like sticking your hand in a wasp nest.": American Progress Action Fund" <[e-mail]


8. WHAT ARE SOME POINTS THAT YOU MIGHT EXPECT TO HEAR FROM BUSH AND THE REPUBLICANS? Talk about: PRICE INDEXING: The current method of calculating Social Security benefits is adjusted to reflect the standard of living when a person retires. That means when your benefits are calculated based on your average earnings, the salary you made 25 years ago is adjusted upwards to reflect the overall rise in wages (wage growth) since that time. The "price indexing" plan, expected to be proposed by Bush, would make that adjustment based on the rise of consumer prices – essentially the inflation rate. Since wages rise much faster than inflation, that means your newly adjusted salary will be lower. The end result is far lower benefits for every new generation of retirees. If this system had been in place since Social Security's inception, people today would be retiring with a benefit tied to the living standard of the 1930s, when 40 percent of households lacked indoor plumbing.: [e-mail]


9. WHAT ELSE CAN WE EXPECT TO COME OUT WAY RE: THIS PUSH FOR PRIVATIZATION? : You will hear talk about how it will be cheaper in the long-run to privatize at least part of Social Security. Specifically, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan claims, "The cost is $10 trillion if we do nothing. So what you're talking about would be a significant savings over those costs." There are two problems with this argument. First, the $10 trillion figure grossly distorts the modest long-range deficit of the Social Security program by projecting that shortfall over eternity. (There is no shortfall at all until 2052. Projections beyond 2052, obviously, are extremely unreliable.) Second, and more fundamentally, "borrowing $2 trillion to fund individual accounts does nothing to reduce Social Security's long-term deficit." Under the Bush plan the long-term deficit is reduced through deep benefit cuts.: [e-mail]


10. WHAT ARE SOME OTHER MATTERS ASSOCIATED WITH RETIREMENT SAVINGS THAT WILL BE BOUGHT UP? The Thrift Savings Plan: what is it land what might be the downsides of such a model, which could be part of the Rovian onslaught?
the Thrift Savings Plan could serve as a possible model for personal investment accounts in Social Security.
Numerous readers said the two programs are unrelated and that the TSP, which relies on federal payroll systems for its basic operation, cannot be replicated on a scale as large as Social Security. Others said a column about the plan failed to stress that the TSP is a voluntary savings program that supplements Social Security, a tax-based program. Cavanaugh's paper (The paper, "Feasibility of Social Security Individual Accounts," was published by the AARP Public Policy Institute. AARP is opposing Bush's plan), for example, says that personal accounts in Social Security will cost more to manage than those in the TSP, in part because the TSP can rely on hundreds of federal agencies to administer payroll deductions and provide retirement planning and other services.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61607-2005Jan9.html?referrer=email


11. SO THE THRIFT SAVINGS PLAN APPEARS TO WORK FOR LARGER PERSONAL INVESTMENT ACCOUNTS, YES? The paper also points out that TSP operates on a progressive fee system (usually 60 cents per $1,000 account balance) so that holders of the higher account balances absorb part of the cost of maintaining smaller accounts. Such a fee system would not work in Social Security because too many accounts would be small, the paper contends. Social Security relies on the government to absorb inflation and market risks, while the TSP shifts those risks to individual investors, Cavanaugh writes. "Attempts to combine these two fundamentally different programs are like mating a bear with a bee -- somebody is going to get hurt," he concludes.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61607-2005Jan9.html?referrer=email


12. WHY DOES WALL STREET WANT THE CHANGE? In the background, beyond private accounts, are various proposals to cut guaranteed Social Security
benefits in the future.


13. BUT WE WILL NEVER HAVE ANOTHER DEPRESSION AS IN 1929: wrong: In 1973-74, the stock
market lost 48 percent of its value. The stock market is a very dangerous place to put money



14. WHO DOES NOT WANT THE CHANGE? (1) AARP, the nation's largest seniors organization, is coming out
strongly against President Bush's plan to allow private individual accounts
within Social Security. (2) On January 10, 2005, a NY Times Opinion piece stated this: "In this and other ways, the administration is manipulating
information - a tacit, yet devastating, acknowledgement, we believe, that an informed public would reject privatizing Social Security." http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/10/opinion/10mon1.html?ex=1106369074&ei=1&en=81cd3e12f07545a0


15. HOW MUCH WOULD IT COST TO PRIVATIZE SOCIAL SECURITY? transitioning to private accounts could cost $2 trillion. See above information also.


16. TO REVIEW, WHERE WOULD THAT MONEY COME FROM? our taxes will have to be increased to make Bush's proposed plan work.


17. THEY TELL US THAT SOCIAL SECURITY IS BROKE OR GOING BROKE?: With all the clamoring about Social Security, a simple fact has been obscured: the Social Security budget is currently running a surplus; [e-mail]


18. OTHER COUNTRIES MUST HAVE SOCIAL SECURITY AND MAYBE THOSE ARE BETTER? wrong: Chile's system, management fees are around 20 times as high. A privatized system will take money from your Social Security check.


19. SHOULD YOU BE WORRIED THAT YOU WILL NOT HAVE SOCIAL SECURITY? Nothing is going to change, in terms of benefits, for people near your retirement age.


20. WHO TAXED SOCIAL SECURITY TO BEGIN WITH? Ronald Reagan, a Republican, began the taxation on Social Security in 1983.


21. IF WE ARE GOING TO 'FIX IT' HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT TO DO AS RELATED TO WHAT HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PAST TO 'FIX' IT? "If you compare its position now with its position at the time of the last reforms in 1977 and 1983, it's clearly better," Professor Diamond said. "Even then, it was readily fixed without radical reforms, and it's obvious that can be done again." (a professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a co-author of the book "Saving Social Security.")





There is no Social Security crisis, just as there were no weapons of mass destruction. Social Security has provided a lifeline to millions of Americans with
millions of checks, and in more than 60 years has never missed a payment—and this track record can continue. Social Security is basically a sound system
that can meet 100 percent of its obligations for the next 39 years, and with responsible changes it can continue to do so indefinitely.

"Social Security is not a crisis for which enormous borrowing, huge benefit
cuts and risky private accounts are a solution. Rather,
it's a financial problem of manageable proportions,
solvable without new borrowing by a combination of modest
benefit cuts and tax increases that could be distributed
fairly and phased in over several decades, while
guaranteeing a basic level of inflation-proof income for
life." http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/10/opinion/10mon1.html?ex=1106369074&ei=1&en=81cd3e12f07545a0


And don't forget: It remains a fact that 30% of the votes in this national election were cast, and 80% of the votes were compiled, by three private companies, owned and controlled by conservative Republicans.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/05/01/12_give.html




REFERENCES:




Edmund L. Andrews; The New York Times ; Monday 10 January 2005:

HTtp://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=41481

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6791950)

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/10/opinion/10mon1.html?ex=1106369074&ei=1&en=81cd3e12f07545a0


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61607-2005Jan9.html?referrer=email


[e-mail]

[texpatriot2004]

13. "President" Chicken Little speaks again n/t

[TahitiNut]

37. Chicken Little Hawk, coWard-in-chief

[stray cat]

15. He intentionally spent the surplus to cover his tax breaks.

He promised to put our social security taxes in a lockbox and he spent it instead. Why does he get a free ride on the fact that he spent it all on his wealthy friend.

Let his friends help solve the problem and turn social security into a fair system by removing the salary cap of 87,000 for paying taxes and if they want to - do a means test on benefits. The government has been using the regressive social security tax to fund tax cuts for corporations and wealthy individuals for far too long.

[sunnystarr]

29. Actually I believe he gave the tax cuts to create the SS crisis.

His main focus was on privatizing SS. In order to sell it to us he needed to create a crisis (kinda like a 9/11 to sell the invasion of Iraq). By giving those tax cuts he not only made his rich buddies and the corporate fat cats happy, at the same time he created the necessary "crisis" to sell his SS privatization program and take the first step in destroying the SS system. That also made his corporate friends happy. First they'll rape the new system, then destroy what remains.

[barb162]

54. I believe likewise; this guy was out to destroy it from day 1

[emad]

16. Talking bankruptcy? From the man leading the most morally,

ethically and politically bankrupt party ever to have slimed into office and plunged the nation into war on the basis of spurious "intelligence" of benefit to no one but the oil and arms industroes.....

[The Backlash Cometh]

17. Who wants to listen to someone who has bankrupt 3 corporations and

started an unnecessary war? This guy has been wrong on so many counts, that as a matter of practice, once he states his position, we should go in the opposite direction.

[starmaker]

18. GENERATIONAL BETRAYAL

accuse others of what you are doing

[TahitiNut]

19. Lying piece of rotten whale shit!

These people are waging an all-out war on the working class! The Bushoilini Regime has eliminated ten million jobs fromt the U.S. economy. The Bushoilini Regime has reduced the incomes of the "lower 80%" by about 10-15%. They've shifted more than 50% of the tax burden on the "top 5%" to the "bottom 80%". And they've "divided and conquered" the working class with LIES and DECEIT to the degree that the stampeded cows can't even muster up the courage for a general strike.

[UpInArms]

20. ABC News: Social Security, Fact vs. Fiction

Does the President's Rhetoric on Social Security Match Reality?

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/YourMoney/story?id=412634&page=1

Jan. 14, 2004 — The chatter surrounding Social Security reform heated up this week as President Bush and the administration began making their case for privatizing the nation's retirement benefits system. With the impending retirement of millions of baby boomers, beginning as early as 2008, the Social Security system faces funding deficits over the next 40 years that could force lawmakers to raise taxes, lower benefits, or take money out of the general budget to keep pace with the country's aging population.

Saying the time to act is now, Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have pushed the idea of private investment accounts for younger workers. The president has said the government will not raise payroll taxes to pay for funding shortfalls, noting that by 2018 the system will be paying out more than it takes in, and by 2042 the system will be "bankrupt."

<snip>

"By the time today's workers who are in their mid-20s begin to retire, the system will be bankrupt. So if you're 20 years old, in your mid-20s, I want you to think about a Social Security system that will be flat bust, bankrupt, unless the United States Congress has got the willingness to act now."

This is a reference to what happens in 2042 and is a scary half-truth. Why don't they just call it a LIE? In 2042 the surplus accumulated in the Social Security Trust Fund -- from decades of workers paying in more than retirees took out -- will indeed be exhausted. But it does not mean workers retiring at that point would get nothing. If the system continues to operate on a pay-as-you-go basis, actuaries estimate retirees would collect Social Security income worth about 70 percent of today's benefits.

...more...

Q. Know when *Co is lying?

A. When his lips are moving.

[TahitiNut]

41. THIS IS IMPORTANT

From the (factual!) article ...

(BushRegime claim:) "By the time today's workers who are in their mid-20s begin to retire, the system will be bankrupt. So if you're 20 years old, in your mid-20s, I want you to think about a Social Security system that will be flat bust, bankrupt, unless the United States Congress has got the willingness to act now."

This is a reference to what happens in 2042 and is a scary half-truth. In 2042 the surplus accumulated in the Social Security Trust Fund -- from decades of workers paying in more than retirees took out -- will indeed be exhausted. But it does not mean workers retiring at that point would get nothing. If the system continues to operate on a pay-as-you-go basis, actuaries estimate retirees would collect Social Security income worth about 70 percent of today's benefits.

And while the president vowed again on Tuesday not to raise taxes to fix Social Security, actuaries further estimate benefits could be maintained at current levels through 2078 by raising payroll taxes 1.89 percent, or less than 1 percent on workers, and less than 1 percent on employers.

---

Beginning in 1984 (which is the approximate date on which the "baby boom" was completely in the workforce!), workers began to pay up to 35% more in payroll taxes than was needed to pay current Social Security beneficiaries (their own parents and grandparents). This "surtax" was designed to build a Trust Fund reserve that would help alleviate the payroll tax burden on the next generation. This can be seen as, in effect, a representation of the working-class "baby boomer" concern that their children not carry the burden of the greater numbers in the "baby boom" generation! (It's not the fault of a baby boomer that (s)he was born!)

We can argue endlessly on the fringes of this reality, but the reality is exactly that.

2013 (1946+67) will be the first year of the full benefit retirement of the "baby boom" generation. 2031 (1964+67) will be the first year in which the entire "baby boom" generation is retired. Assuming a static life expectancy, the vast majority of the "baby boom" generation will be dead by 2042, the year when the Trust Fund reserve is depleted.

To all those born after 1964: Your "baby boom" parents did their best to leave you with a better world - and, as much as they could, without the burden of their retirement. They're the first generation to do that! Prior to Social Security, children were the only source of support for their own aging parents. With Social Security, we banded together to care for all our parents. If you want to throw that away, then fuck you! Your parents aren't the fucking enemy! The enemies are those who can't keep their greedy hands off your heritage! Pull your heads out of your butts and wake up!

Working people are getting less and less of a share of the wealth created by their own labors. The neo-plantationists, who get wealthy from the labors of the working class, have unbounded greed -- and you're letting them get away with it! Assholes!

[UpInArms]

45. what seems to be completely overlooked when discussing

Social Security - is the "pay as you go" plan that was instituted in 1983 - which paid in advance for the retirement of the baby boom.

The "funds run low in 2042" discounts all of the IOUs that are in treasury notes.

A. Why in the world can we not collect on the money that is OWED?

B. Because the thieves at the helm are trying to change the rules of engagement.

Don't let them!

[UpInArms]

75. here's some more refutation of the spin

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6827519/

Social Security, solvency and political spin
How credible are President Bush's dire predictions?

excerpt:

In 1977, changes were made that were supposed to keep the system solvent well into the 21st century. But after five tumultuous years Congress and President Reagan were forced to confront the issue again. This time a bipartisan group of lawmakers and business leaders, under the direction of Alan Greenspan, came up with a solution that put the system on a path that is projected to keep it solvent until 2042 or 2052, according to the most widely accepted estimates.

Nancy Altman, who was an aide to Greenspan on the Social Security commission, remembers “exactly the same kind of hype” as we are seeing today. “It was exactly the same — the sky is falling,” said Altman.

The difference is that the problems facing the system in the 1980s were truly urgent. "It really was a crisis," said Mary Falvey, a member of the Greenspan commission. She remembers being told that Congress had to act by April 1983 to keep the Social Security checks from grinding to a halt two months later.

This time around, Social Security is years away from anything that honestly could be described as a financial crisis. But that has not stopped President Bush from trying to whip up enthusiasm for his proposed personal retirement accounts by warning of an imminent disaster.

“If you're 20 years old, in your mid-20s, and you're beginning to work, I want you to think about a Social Security system that will be flat bust, bankrupt, unless the United States Congress has got the willingness to act now,” he said Tuesday at a forum on Social Security. The stark choice of words was hardly a slip of the tongue – Bush used the word “bankrupt” five times in the 45-minute session.

<snip>

That is just plain wrong. In 14 of the past 47 years, including 1975 to 1983, Social Security paid out more in benefits than the government collected in payroll, with the gap reaching $10 billion in 1983. So the projected “crossover” point in 2018 is a relatively meaningless milestone, say opponents of Bush’s privatization plans, even as they acknowledge the system faces long-term problems.

...more...

this is a very good and indepth analysis that doesn't allow the idiotson thief cheat liar to split his incomprehensible mumbles into soundbites.

[TahitiNut]

78. "That is just plain wrong." By merely calling it 'wrong' they're ...

... putting lipstick on the LYING PIG.

It's not just wrong, it's a fucking lie! The ReichsMonsters know it's a lie. This LIE is totally and completely betrayed by facts which are available to anyone. This is a more blatant lie than WMD or even "I didn't have sexual relations"! It's not even close.

[davekriss]

22. It's theft, pure and simple!

(Apologies in advance for the breach in netiquette, but I am copying a post from I just made on another thread...)

The Bush administration is bandying about a $10 trillion number to scare the population into acting against their best self-interest. This $10 trillion number is the projected shortfall over "infinity", not 75 years. Who except this bozo administration makes policy over numbers projected over "infinity"? Geeze, we can't even correctly predict GDP growth over a 1 year horizon, we're going to predict the flow of FICA taxes over "forever"? Get a grip, nation!!

And how can anyone believe this yellow-caked, radio-controlled-model-airplanes-spraying-anthrax-over-Kansas lying administration on ANY point? No, reach for your wallets, folks, as it's about to get picked again!!

Projections today tell us social security payouts are solvent until 2018. At that point the Treasury Bonds (special issue) held by the Social Security Trust Fund will slowly be redeemed. The CBO forecasts that Social Security remains solvent at 100% benefits until 2052 (the SSA, with even more conservative economic growth assumptions, says 2042). There is a $3.7 trillion gap if we hold to 100% benefits from 2053 through 2075. So, from today (2005) to 2075 there is a forecast, based on conservative economic assumptions, that there will be a future shortfall of $3.7 trillion.

First, it's important to note that if the U.S. economy grows more than the 2.5% GDP growth built into the CBO model, then not only can we pay 100% benefits, but the surplus continues to grow.

Second, this is a matter of social priorities. Though Social Security shows a shortfall of $3.7 trillion at the back end of a 75 year view, George Bush and the Republican Party decided instead to address the wants of a thin sliver of the U.S. social body. They pushed through two massive tax cuts that, just between 2001 and 2010, are expected to generate between $2 to $3 trillion in additional debt. On top of that, they decided to lie us into an unnecessary, illegal, and immoral war that will cost around $600 billion before its done. That's between 60% to 90% of the Social Security shortfall right there (and we didn't even add on the Medicare pharmacuetical giveaway), frittered away on mostly the top 2% of the population, given away just in arch-class-terrorist Gee Dubya's first 4 years (!).

So instead of continuing to generate federal surpluses and paying down the debt (which is what the Democrats were doing), thereby making future budgetary room to redeem those Trust Fund Treasury Bonds, the Bush administration decided in effect to give away the promises behind the Trust Fund to his "base", the already advantaged rich. Bush has enabled the rich to steel their financial fortresses ahead of what's surely to be the Latinization of the American economy, one where the owning class rules, with a thin sliver of managers and magistrates that service that class, and then all the rest of us, the "useless eaters" and "cannon fodder" left to "own" our deprivation and misery.

It is theft, pure and simple; a theft effected while most working Americans sleep in front of the blue glow of their nightly worship at the altar of crony-capitalism, the nightly fix of CNN/CNBC/MSNBC/FOX/ABC/CBS/NBC telling us that we've always been at war with Eastasia, that widget production numbers continue to be up and up and up, and that Big Brother has magnaminously decided to up our choco rations another week. It is a tragedy of enormous proportion that will take generations to overcome.

[TahitiNut]

46. Exactly! Even worse, the "models" assume a successful war on labor.

Every element of the "intermediate" economic assumptions by the Trustees and the CBO project declining labor compensation, economic disenfranchisement of the American worker, increased 'ownership' shares of the wealth created by the working class, and a continuing failure of health care for the working class.

Every economically exploitative policy of the Bushoilini Regime is presumed to be on-going. And to "correct" it they propose even greater public subsidies to the "investment/ownership" class! It's fucking obscene!

[deaconblue]

23. he's using the Iraq war formula

keep repeating the bullshit over and over again. get the media to repeat your talking points. create an atmosphere of fear and crisis. warn opponents that they'll lose the elections if they don't support him ; when the whole thing falls flat on its face in the next decade blame everything else but himself ; he only had "the nations best interest at heart" .
if the democrats fall for this crap by this scumbag all over again, this country is finished ..

[rockedthevoteinMA]

24. Oh how I wish he would just STFU!!

In five years I haven't heard ANYTHING come out of his mouth that has anything to do with the g.d. truth. I am so sick of this man. /tirade done.
:grr:

[against all enemies]

26. Benefits of mass destruction? need a term that has mass destruction

in it so people can easily see the similarities in his plan.

[Cobalt Violet]

27. It's class warfare. The investor class against worker class.

It's wrong. I hope the Democrats don't play let's be nice on this.

[Guaranteed]

28. Yup, here we go with the fearmongering.

Democrats had better call it exactly what it is.

[radric]

30. Why can't they just propose something like this...

Keep the SS taxes like they are now (with their normal adjustments) and allow all Americans to have a access to a 401k plan to be deducted from their paycheck (if they choose to)? Have the government set up the plans and offer them to all Americans. Kills two birds with one stone imo. Keeps SS going and offers the supplement to SS the prez seems to have a hard on for...

[Blue Gardener]

32. There have been several LTTE's in my local paper

All calling bullshit on Bush and his scare tactics regarding Social Security. We need to keep writing letters and keep his lies out in the open.

[Elidor]

33. Chicken Little says the sky is falling

Amazing how many media whores will report his breathless hysteria as the gospel truth.

[Stevious]

35. Tell * to stop lying about Social Security

mailto:[e-mail]

Subject: Please stop lying about Social Security!!!

:wtf:

[susu369]

36. BOOGA!!! BOOGA!!!

and....

Liar! Liar!

[driver8]

84. How do you know when Shrub is lying??

His lips are moving...

My God! How does this asshole live with himself? Lie, Lie, Lie, Lie and more lies!! I am so fucking sick of his bullshit lies and dumbass ideas and his fucking over of the American people.

Fuck you asshole!

Ahh...I feel better.

[truthisfreedom]

39. generational betrayal, huh? thanks for the ammunition, bucko.

you've just handed a catch-phrase to the righteous left.

[cornermouse]

43. That's a quote from Bush.

``If we do not act now, government will eventually be left with two choices: dramatically reduce benefits or impose a massive economically ruinous tax increase,'' the president said. ``Leaving our children with such a mess would be a generational betrayal.''

Looks like they already thought of it.

[cornermouse]

40. Seems to me that by using Bush math, Bush should be declaring

his own personal bankruptcy in, oh probably 6 or 7 years.

[SammyWinstonJack]

44. bu$h** knows something about bankruptcy.

Was it two or three companies he bankrupted? bu$h** is morally bankrupt.

[MrBenchley]

47. Somebody tell this fuckwit about the 14th Amendment

and remind him he took an oath...not that it means anything to the corrupt drunk, but still....

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

[lakelly]

48. Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice...

I wont get fooled again. Its the fear factor all over again. Always the same old thing, play the fear card. Create a immediate threat where none is eminent. Try to take the heart out of the social security program and call it "Strengthening Social Security." Pretty disgusting, eh. All I can say is the Democrats better not make nice nice with the president on this. :puke: :puke:

[Chicago Democrat]

50. World Tells Bush: "You are a LIAR!"

:)

[barb162]

51. "economically ruinous tax increase" HAHAHAHA

whereas he's done economically ruinous tax breaks for the rich while fighting a war.

[Catchawave]

52. Social Security Bashing: A Historical Perspective (NYT)

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/16/business/yourmoney/16view.html

ECONOMIC VIEW
Social Security Bashing: A Historical Perspective
By DANIEL GROSS

Published: January 16, 2005


RESIDENT BUSH claimed last week that the Social Security system would be "flat bust, bankrupt" in 40 years "unless the United States Congress has got the willingness to act now."

Given that professional economic forecasters are seldom correct when they predict what will happen in the next four quarters, it is difficult to accept 40-year estimates made by an amateur forecaster, even if he is the president. From its very origins, Social Security has tended to inspire apocalyptic economic projections. Now that economic claims and counterclaims about the program's future are multiplying, it is worth revisiting the response that greeted the introduction of Social Security 70 years ago.

Cont'd........

[buddysmellgood]

56. But we must have cap gains tax relief now!

[buddysmellgood]

57. Hey! Why not cut social security taxes and grow our way out of the problem

[alarimer]

58. Where are the Democrats??

Why are they not running ads to refute this?????

[suegeo]

59. The same guy told us Saddam had weapons

Sorry, I never believed this guy's opinion on anything. This is the same monkey that told us we were in imminent danger from Saddam's weapons.

Turns out Saddam didn't have any weapons, nor a connection to Sept. 2001, and now thousands are dead.

Why anyone believes anything coming from the chimp or his crew baffles me. Must be brainwashing.

[Cocoa]

60. liar

[alfredo]

61. He is not saving, reforming, or fixing Social Security. He is

Phasing it out

crippling it

destroying it.


Edited to add last line.

[lovuian]

62. 114 Billion a year for Iraq give that to Social Security

and we will be just fine!!! Americans your social security went to Iraq!!!

How does that feel!!!

[cosmicdot]

63. "... and he quoted Social Security trustees ..."

and, who are these Trustees?

There are six Trustees:

- the Secretary of the Treasury
- the Secretary of Labor
- the Secretary of Health and Human Services
- the Commissioner of Social Security and
- two members appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate to represent the public: John L. Palmer, University Professor at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, and Thomas R. Saving, Director of the Private Enterprise Research Center and Professor of Economics at Texas A & M University.

just so we know who he's quoting


http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/trsummary.html

[spooked911]

65. Liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar

liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar.... pants on fire!

[stevebreeze]

66. SS is healthier today then it was in the 50's 60's or 70's

In fact 2042 is a very pessimistic estimate of when we will reach the same point we were at in 1983, SS having paid out as much as it has taken in. To repair the minor shortfall we would at most have to increase payroll taxes 1% at the employee level and 1% for employers, smaller then most of the repairs we have done to extend the life of SS in the past.

It is hard to know were to start with debunking all the lies on SS we are being told by the misadministration. There is almost no chance that on average SS money invested in stocks will return more money then if it is used to buy t-bills. To see why you have to understand that according to the SS trustees the GDP will grow only 1.8%, even though w have grown at 3-4% since the civil war. Should we grow that slowly there is no chance that stocks will return anywhere near the 7% we are currently being told(stock can not outgrow the economy as a whole on a stained basis). Second the Wall Street skim will amount to 20-25% of the total value of accounts over the life of the accounts. That 1% a year adds up fast!

[NuttyFluffers]

67. DANGER! In The Far Distant Future You Might Be Broke!

OMFG NOOOOOO!!!!!111111oneoneoneoneone

:dunce:

a retranslation of 'moran'ese into basic english.

[The_Casual_Observer]

68. Somebody is pushing chimp into this. Chimp is worthless.

It looks as though they are calling chimp on this one. If this one was important, he should have tried it first, before Iraq. His credibility on these mattters is gone, all he has left is "moral values".

[Seldona]

69. He has no problem borrowing otherwise.

Why not just borrow the money to cover the costs when the time comes?

Oh right, *'s base does not get their greedy little hands on it.

[depakid]

70. I expect MORE from the Guardian

that parroting bush's outright LIES and then doing a "he said, she said." After all, the British followed Thatcher into their own pension mess- and the chickens are now coming home to roost.

it's very disappointing to see them print this, considering that they are usually not whores- and in this instance especially, they know better.

[ignatius 2]

71. WMDS,WMDS,BOOGA,BOOGA,BOOGA..this man has credibility how? If he

told me the pope is Catholic I would call him a GD liar.

[Donailin]

73. Fear Mongerer strikes again

the same shit he did with Iraq; they're gonna kill us, we're all gonna die, we have to invade!"

Now it's, "Old people are gonna die if we don't take social security money and invest it on wallstreet!"

Same shit, different day but lots of idiots will go for it, and per usual, because the republican voters have NO short term memory, will want Bush to do this the more democrats protest it.

[LynnTheDem]

76. bush opens mouth, LIES again.

Liar, liar, liar.

[Colorado Blue]

77. I think folks are beginning to get mad...

and get mobilized. Today it was REALLY cold and there were HUNDREDS of people out protesting in my neighborhood. Many bore signs which quoted variations on the Liar Liar Pants On Fire theme. Others were protesting the enormous cost of the war in Iraq and wondering why we are dumping all our money (and blood) over there, instead of educating our own children.

Good question, huh.

I am praying that the people have enough energy and fire to stop this trainwreck before it's too late!!! I can't imagine that the moral values folks who voted for * were expecting this blitz on Social Security - he expressly PROMISED he wouldn't try to make big changes in S.S. Right? Hopefully at least SOME of the * voters are beginning to see the light? Other Blue State Republicans with whom I fear I'm acquainted are beginning to get very cold feet about * due to this issue as well as the religious thing - so perhaps their juggernaut isn't as all powerful as it seems. I hope. I'm still smarting about the "human capital" B.S. in the Brooks article. Really unbelievable - but that's how they think I guess. The word "slave" being un PC these days:)

Happy Sunday, all...don't despair!

[Gloria]

80. Dems should counter with how Bush is bankrupting the country...

Gloves off, please.

[Massachusetts]

81. The boy king has NO Clothes

[texpatriot2004]

82. Ain't it the truth. The emperor has no clothes. I wonder whose job

it is to walk beside him, on both sides, and carry the dark heavy curtains so that President Chicken Little doesn't see reality?

[Megahurtz]

83. LYING

THIEF!!!:argh:

[olddad56]

85. Yeah SS is bankrupt, And Iraq has WMD.

[raysr]

86. Lyin mother

fuckin BASTARD BUSH! And yes Bob Shieffer, he is RIDICULOUS!!

[theredpill]

87. Lyndon LaRouche Interview in Ohio

Bush's Social Security Privatization:
A Foot in the Door for Fascism

http://www.larouchepac.com/pages/writings_files/2004/041228_ss_01.htm

This is a great piece. Lyndon is a very smart man