Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 25
  1.    #1  
    Woman in Audience: I don't really understand. How is it the new
    [Social Security] plan is going to fix that problem?

    Dubya: Because the -- all which is on the table begins to address the big
    cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculated, for example, is on
    the table. Whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered.
    And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those -- changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be -- or closer delivered to what has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the -- like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate -- the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those -- if that growth is affected, it will help on the red.
    --America's Monkey, attempting adult conversation, Tampa, Feb. 4, 2005,


    lets straighten this out a bit:

    FISCAL OUTLOOK

    CLAIM: "By the year 2042, the entire system would be exhausted and bankrupt." [President Bush, 2/2/05]

    FACT: In 2042, enough new money will be coming in to pay between 73-80 percent of promised benefits. Even with this reduction, new retirees will still receive more money, in inflation-adjusted dollars, than today's beneficiaries. [WP, 2/5/05]

    CLAIM: "In the year 2018, for the first time ever, Social Security will pay out more in benefits than the government collects in payroll taxes." [President Bush, 12/11/04]

    FACT: "In 14 of the past 47 years, including 1975 to 1983, Social Security paid out more in benefits than the government collected in payroll." [MSNBC, 1/14/05]

    FACT: Under Bush's plan, expenditures will begin to exceed revenues even earlier, in 2012. [New York Times, 2/4/05]

    CLAIM: "Under the current system, today's 30-year old worker will face a 27% benefit cut when he or she reaches normal retirement age." [GOP Guide to Social Security Reform, 1/27/05]

    FACT: According to the Congressional Budget Office, younger workers would receive better benefits from Social Security as it exists now, even if nothing changes, than from President Bush's private accounts plan. [EPI, 2/05]

    THE PRESIDENT'S PLAN / PRIVATE ACCOUNTS

    CLAIM: "As we fix Social Security, we also have the responsibility to make the system a better deal for younger workers. And the best way to reach that goal is through voluntary personal retirement accounts." [President Bush, 2/2/05]

    FACT: Analysis of the plan so far does not prove the accounts would be a better deal for anyone not working on Wall Street. Workers who opt for the private accounts would recover forfeited benefits through their accounts only "if their investments realized a return equal to or greater than the 3 percent earned by Treasury bonds currently held by the Social Security system." But CBO factors out stock market risks to assume a 3.3 percent rate of return. With 0.3 percent subtracted for expected administrative costs on the account, "the full amount in a worker's account would be reduced dollar for dollar from his Social Security checks, for a net gain of zero." [WP, 2/4/05]

    CLAIM: "You'll be able to pass along the money that accumulates in your personal account, if you wish, to your children or grandchildren." [President Bush, 2/2/05]

    FACT: Most lower-income workers will be required to purchase government lifetime annuities, financial instruments that provide a guaranteed monthly payment for life but that expire at death. Money in these annuities cannot be passed on to heirs. [NYT, 2/3/05]

    CLAIM: "We must pass reforms that solve the financial problems of Social Security once and for all." [President Bush, 2/2/05]

    FACT: "A Bush aide, briefing reporters on the condition of anonymity [said] that the individual accounts would do nothing to solve the system's long-term financial problems." The long-term gap in revenue would "have to be closed through benefit cuts that have yet to be detailed." [LAT, 2/3/05; WP, 2/5/05]

    CLAIM: "A personal account would be your account, you would own it, and the government could never take it away." [President Bush, 2/8/05]

    FACT: Bush's Social Security plan is a far cry from the private ownership he's touting, however. For example, instead of private plans that let Americans control their own investments, there are tight restrictions on which conservative stocks and bonds the public will be allowed to buy. And, as the New York Times reports, "the more restrictions there are, the harder it would be for people to achieve the outsized returns the administration has generally promoted to sell the public on private accounts." [NYT, 2/6/05]

    CLAIM: "Best of all, the [private] accounts would be replacing the empty promises of government with the real assets of ownership." [President Bush, 2/8/05]

    FACT: Social Security trust funds "hold nothing but U.S. Treasury securities," recognized as "the safest, most reliable investment worldwide." [Century Foundation, 1/26/05]

    CLAIM: "The problem that we now face is not one that we can tax our way out of, for a very simple reason: The costs and the current program are growing faster than the underlying tax base. So if we were to raise taxes today to deal with it, and the costs of the program continued to grow faster than the tax base, then in the future, future generations would simply have to come back and raise taxes again." [Senior White House Official, Press Conference, 2/3/05]

    FACT: An alternative proposal by Peter Diamond and Peter Orszag would resolve Social Security's funding problems directly and permanently through modest tax increases. The Congressional Budget Office states that, "under Diamond-Orszag, the trust fund balance would always be positive and scheduled benefits would be fully financed." [CBO, 12/22/04]

    HISTORY

    CLAIM: "Social Security was a great moral success of the 20th century, and we must honor its great purposes in this new century." [President Bush, 2/2/05]

    FACT: Conservatives have been trying to gut Social Security since its inception. Both Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan endorsed privatization in 1964. In 1983, the Cato Institute laid out a privatization plan similar to President Bush's, stating, "We will meet the next financial crisis in Social Security with a private alternative ready in the wings." [Miami Herald, 2/7/05]

    RHETORIC

    CLAIM: "I think it's important for people to be open about the truth when it comes to Social Security." [President Bush, 2/4/05]

    FACT: The Bush administration has lobbied hard for privatization while being notably closemouthed about the details. [WP, 2/6/05]

    FACT: The Wall Street Journal reports the White House is quietly assembling a coalition of deep-pocketed allies "that will privately raise $35 million for an advertising and lobbying effort to push the politically risky measure through Congress." [WSJ, 2/4/05]

    CLAIM: "The role of a President is to confront problems – not to pass them on to a future President, future Congress, or a future generation." [President Bush, 2/4/05]

    FACT: **** Cheney admits trillions of dollars in future borrowing will be necessary to cover the cost of establishing private accounts. This deficit would have to be repaid by today's younger workers. [NYT, 2/6/05]
  2. #2  
    Don't you have anything better to do than spur your hate ?
  3. #3  
    dbrummels, you know its funny. these people are great at criticizing things they oppose, but they are absolutely clueless when it comes to coming up with their own solutions.
    the engine's running but there's nobody behind the wheel
  4. #4  
    "FACT: In 2042, enough new money will be coming in to pay between 73-80 percent of promised benefits. Even with this reduction, new retirees will still receive more money, in inflation-adjusted dollars...."


    so why did YOUR party, the democrats make such a big stink about solving "the great social security crises" if now your facts prove it would serve us just fine?

    you people are nothing but paradoxes. you clamor for change, and then after steps are taken to make a change, you cry out bloody murder that nothing needed to be changed.

    don't you people get tired of your own bs?
  5. #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    these people are great at criticizing things they oppose, but they are absolutely clueless when it comes to coming up with their own solutions.
    hey, I have a plan, lets repeal the tax cuts for the wealthy and start paying down our deficit.
  6. #6  
    our nj dem gov cody had a great idea - let's tax 401 ks. our retirement is in trouble, but let's tax it anyway. who gives a sh"t. oh and we'l blame the repubs for anything that goes wrong.

    paradoxes in living color
  7. #7  
    you guys and your governers, that McGreevy fellow, he was a piece of work. I should talk, we had Gray Davis, who had his problems, and now we have Aaarnold, he is not bad for a republican, but he is all show and pomp with no follow up. I think we both deserve better governers.
  8. #8  
    well, you're more familiar with arnold's performance than I am, cell, but I agree in that we definitely need better governors.
  9.    #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    hey, I have a plan, lets repeal the tax cuts for the wealthy and start paying down our deficit.
    Since there is apparently a crisis, I would be willing to give up my tax cut to fix Soc. Sec. I'm sure other patriotic Americans would be willing to also. Except for the greedy ones...........
  10. #10  
    this is just something the Bush administration can get behind that panders to corporate interest. i'd like to see them stand up to a more immediate problem, such as health care, but i don't think his sponsors would approve.
    "We the CEOs, in order to form a more lucrative union..."
  11.    #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by dlbrummels
    Don't you have anything better to do than spur your hate ?
    you have a problem with people hearing facts rather than propaganda? will you give up your tax cut to save social security?
  12. #12  
    so you'd give up your tax cut because your so self - righteously unselfish, only to find that your democrat party dips into the social security fund in order to pay for their numerous campaigns or programs, etc, right?
    sounds like a plan to me. and how unselfish of us! fantastic! let's give up tax cuts so that the money can go into the "social security system" and then bingo only to discover that the dems ended up taking that money out again to use it to pay for programs in their agenda.
    its the same ole circle of crap.
    tax cuts were placed because democrats were whining like babies about how bad the economy was. you whined that something ought to be done about that. so bush passed tax cuts to stimulate the economy. the economy is steadily improving. now your complaining about the tax cuts and that rather than look at them as solutions to stimulate the economy, you transparently try to blabber that its all about selfishness. inane, nudist.
    ok now, social security is the problem, so you hammer bush about how social security should be addressed. so bush addresses the problem and takes action, now, after bush takes action, you're whining and moaning that nothing should have been changed and that the program was fine the way it was.
    WHATEVER, NUDIST. I just look at these naive little arguments and shake my head.

    what would YOU have done to stimulate the economy?

    what would YOU have done to stop outsourcing? think that's possible?

    what would YOU have done about medicare?

    what would YOU have done so differently as to capture the imagination and the confidence of the american majority? why hasn't your party been able to convince the majority, nudist, if YOU guys have all the answers?

    ya think dean is going to champion all of our hearts and minds? god help you guys. honestly I think most repubs HOPE dean wins the spot, because then all we have to do is sit back and watch that buffoon give us all we need win the election easily again.
  13.    #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    .... because then all we have to do is sit back and watch that buffoon give us all we need win the election easily again.
    DIEBOLD gives gives you all you need to win the election again. your side couldnt win a fair and honest election no matter who you run. you depend on paperless voting so the results can't be verified. and republican secretaries of state, who won't answer to inquiries about "irregularities".

    Bush has failed miserably at all the things you mentioned. but his friends and corporations have done quite well. a record to be proud of.
  14. #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by nudist
    DIEBOLD gives gives you all you need to win the election again. your side couldnt win a fair and honest election no matter who you run. you depend on paperless voting so the results can't be verified. and republican secretaries of state, who won't answer to inquiries about "irregularities".

    Bush has failed miserably at all the things you mentioned. but his friends and corporations have done quite well. a record to be proud of.
    God...what a waste of oxygen and bandwith
    Last edited by clairegrrl; 02/12/2005 at 09:26 AM.
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  15. #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by nudist
    you have a problem with people hearing facts rather than propaganda? will you give up your tax cut to save social security?
    I have a problem with someone who half of his posts are attacks on the opposing party.

    Actually, you are the biggest spreader of propaganda.

    Yes, I would give my taxcut to save SSI.
  16. #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    God...you're a waste of oxygen and bandwith
    hey CG, I did not realize a laugh smiley neutralizes a personal attack. I will have to try that one on you - at the right time of course.

    Anyway, I hear your favorite professor is in the news:

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...r_x.htm?csp=36
  17. #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    hey CG, I did not realize a laugh smiley neutralizes a personal attack. I will have to try that one on you - at the right time of course.

    Anyway, I hear your favorite professor is in the news:

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...r_x.htm?csp=36
    Gee...it's been in the news for weeks. You musta been outta town and missed it.

    and BTW that wasnt a personal attach...just a fact.
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  18. #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    so you'd give up your tax cut because your so self - righteously unselfish, only to find that your democrat party dips into the social security fund in order to pay for their numerous campaigns or programs, etc, right?
    sounds like a plan to me. and how unselfish of us! fantastic! let's give up tax cuts so that the money can go into the "social security system" and then bingo only to discover that the dems ended up taking that money out again to use it to pay for programs in their agenda.
    its the same ole circle of crap.
    tax cuts were placed because democrats were whining like babies about how bad the economy was. you whined that something ought to be done about that. so bush passed tax cuts to stimulate the economy. the economy is steadily improving. now your complaining about the tax cuts and that rather than look at them as solutions to stimulate the economy, you transparently try to blabber that its all about selfishness. inane, nudist.
    ok now, social security is the problem, so you hammer bush about how social security should be addressed. so bush addresses the problem and takes action, now, after bush takes action, you're whining and moaning that nothing should have been changed and that the program was fine the way it was.
    WHATEVER, NUDIST. I just look at these naive little arguments and shake my head.

    what would YOU have done to stimulate the economy?

    what would YOU have done to stop outsourcing? think that's possible?

    what would YOU have done about medicare?

    what would YOU have done so differently as to capture the imagination and the confidence of the american majority? why hasn't your party been able to convince the majority, nudist, if YOU guys have all the answers?

    ya think dean is going to champion all of our hearts and minds? god help you guys. honestly I think most repubs HOPE dean wins the spot, because then all we have to do is sit back and watch that buffoon give us all we need win the election easily again.
    You ask what could be done? - repeal the tax cuts and use the money to pay off our deficit and save social security and medicare. I am not a proponent of the trickle down theory, and I am not at all convinced that the tax cuts do much to stimulate the economy. The way I look at it, the rising defecits from Bush's tax cuts has more rapidly worsened the problem with medicare and social security. Also, I get the impression that Bush and neoconservatives hate these programs anyway, so I can't trust that they will be good stewards and "fix" them, I think they just want to dismantle them, one step at a time.

    By the way speaking of governers, I think you guys had a good one in Whitman.
  19. #19  
    "DIEBOLD gives gives you all you need to win the election again. your side couldnt win a fair and honest election no matter who you run. you depend on paperless voting so the results can't be verified. and republican secretaries of state, who won't answer to inquiries about "irregularities".


    keep on telling yourself that, nudist. so the only way you lose is if someone else cheated, is that right? well that sounds like, nothing other than a good for nothing whiny-*** democrat!!

    that's a PATHETIC explanation for why you guys are losers, nudist! you guys lost because you have a very weak party. extreme left views, which match with only a minority of america. and with dean taking over, you're going to lose a GREAT DEAL more! you know this is a fact. leave it to the dems to elect a loser to head the DNC! LOL. the people have spoken regarding dean, he's way out of popularity ranks with america, so you put HIM in the position to give a voice to the party? what a sad, sad state of affairs! I think this is the beginning of the end for democrats party, actually. you are being held hostage by these offbeat, out- of -touch extreme lefters who behave like buffoons and can't control themselves!
    I don't see it happening. at all.
    but keep comforting yourself with the whole diebold, thing, if that warms you up at night - go ahead.
    in the meantime, the rest of us will be dealing with REALITY. k?
  20. #20  
    cell, I agree whitman did a fairly good job here. she was classy as well. the subsequent governors have been rejects from MAD magazine or something - terrible.

    regarding social security,

    FACT: In 2042, enough new money will be coming in to pay between 73-80 percent of promised benefits. Even with this reduction, new retirees will still receive more money, in inflation-adjusted dollars, than today's beneficiaries. [WP, 2/5/05]

    is social security then truly in trouble? if what is stated up above is true, then why was there a need to change anything about the program in the first place?

    this is really what's baffling me. there was so much concern about the program failing, and now the above evidence is presented that most will be compensated just fine. I mean, doesn't this raise serious questions or what!?
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions