Is President Bush the Stupidest or the most Lying President ever?

Unbelievable stuff coming out of his mouth lately. Look ath CBS Marketwatch fact check.
http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/stor...le&dist=google

Bush vs. facts

Bush: "As a matter of fact, 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, 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."

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.

Future presidents and Congresses could also choose to fully fund scheduled retirement benefits from general tax revenue.

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.
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.

Bush: "In the year 2018, in order to take care of baby boomers like me and -- (laughter) -- some others I see out there -- (laughter) -- the money going out is going to exceed the money coming in."

The facts: According to the SSA, costs are projected to exceed income, including tax revenues and interest income from the trust funds' bonds, starting in 2028, not 2018. The 2018 date is when tax revenues alone no longer meet costs; workers have been paying extra taxes since 1983 to build up the trust funds' assets for just this eventuality.

Bush: "The problem is, is that times have changed since 1935. Then, most women did not work outside the house, and the average life expectancy was about 60 years old -- which for a guy 58 years old, must have been a little discouraging. Today, Americans, fortunately, are living longer and longer. I mean, we're living way beyond 60 years old, and most women are working outside the house. Things have shifted."

The facts: According to the SSA, the life expectancy for a 65-year-old man in 1940 was 76.9 years. Today, a man aged 65 can be expected to live to 81. Most of the increase in life expectancy in the past half century has been for infants, not for the elderly.

The increase in the percentage of women working outside the home has boosted Social Security's resources, rather than depleted them. Today, many women who worked receive a widow's pension rather than their own earned benefits. All the payroll taxes they paid are funding someone else's retirement.

Of all those the women statement blew me away the most.

Also, on average are we earning more then ever, if so, then isn't actually a higher percentage going into the SS coffers then before?

I am with ya on this one techs, the whole SS thing is a non-issue blown way out of proportion.

The only real reason why anyone doesn't like the plan is the old reason against any taxes "It is my money dangit all"

To which I reply, if you want to live, prosper and function in the greatest nation and greatest society ever, you have to pay. There is no such thing as a free lunch for anyone.

So the President is telling the young community, that unless something changes now, theyre gonna be workng when they retire jsut to live? Is the system that bad? Hasnt it worked for so long? Just asking cause I dont know much about it.

"Social Security Trust Fund".....nothing more than a pipe dream.

I said it in the other thread, there is no bank holding a trust fund.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraflyer

The US government spends virtually all the money it receives, including any “surpluses” and the taxes and Social Security payments it has taken from us over the years. That money flows from our paychecks into the government coffers by one route or another and out again.

Our Social Security "surplus" isn’t sitting in a vault somewhere. This year’s surplus is being spent as you read this; the surpluses for last year and previous years are gone. All we have to show for them is a bunch of government bonds.

Government bonds are among the safest of investments for individuals because the government guarantees to return their money with interest. When the transaction is between two government agencies, however, it is meaningless. It’s as though you took your last twenty dollars from your left pocket to buy lunch, wrote yourself an IOU for twenty dollars and put it in your right pocket, then told your spouse you still had twenty dollars in your right pocket for dinner. The government is your left pocket and Social Security is your right pocket.

---

I see all of your facts are based solely on the SSA's own website......you're one of the first to decry anything the administration posts as "facts", but here you are taking the SSA's as gospel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraflyer

"Social Security Trust Fund".....nothing more than a pipe dream.

I said it in the other thread, there is no bank holding a trust fund.



I see all of your facts are based solely on the SSA's own website......you're one of the first to decry anything the administration posts as "facts", but here you are taking the SSA's as gospel.

---

Paraflyer you are 100 percent WRONG. There are government treasury bills sitting in a bank owned by the SSA. These are the exact same t-bills owned by millions of people and countries around the world. They are considered the safest investments you can make. FYI even if you put your "cash" in a bank it is loaned out and is not actually there.

The only two ways the SSA can lose the money they have invested are:

If the USA declares bankruptcy and refuses to pay the interest and principle on these notes. Then every person and country in the world who owns these notes will also lose their investment. (The only other option would be to put the cash in building somewhere and watch it lose 3 percent of its value due to inflation.)

If our government decides to not honor the t-bills owned by the SSA while still honoring those held by everyone else.

So the SSA surpluses are in the worlds safest investment.

"Here's your reality. You graduate from college. You begin your first real job. During the orientation process with your new employer someone steps in front of the group of new employees wearing a little smiley-face button with FICA printed on it. This person tells you that he is going to be in the payroll office every single payday, and before you get your paycheck he is going to take about 14% right off the top. That's 14 cents from every dollar you earn.

Mr. FICA then tells you that the government might, though it is not obligated to do so, let you have some of that money back if you live long enough. If you die before the government starts paying you this money back the government will keep it. You cannot leave it to relatives or charities through your will. Mr. FICA also tells you that politicians are going to spend that money ... all of it ... as soon as they get their hands on it. If things get so bad that there isn't enough money coming in as FICA "contributions" to pay the people who managed to live long enough to get some back, they will simply pass a regulation saying that you have to be older still before you start getting checks.

You raise your hand to ask a question. "Why can't I put that money in some retirement account that I own and manage? After all, I did work for it. I did earn it."

Mr. FICA is very unhappy with you. What's your problem? Don't you know that there are politicians in Washington, both Democrat and Republican, who are sitting there waiting for that money? They need that money to spend on projects in their home districts so they can tell the voters what a great job they're doing! They need that money to make more and more people dependent on them and dependent on government for their lifestyles! How are these politicians going to get their hands on that money if they allow you to put it into an investment account that you own and control? You're young, you're idealistic. You'll learn.

Politicians are telling us that we just can't privatize our Social Security accounts because, they say, it would cost too much. Cost? How? You just heard it. That money that you earned sitting in your private investment account is money that the politicians can't spend to buy votes. You say that they should just cut spending? What are you, nuts? Cut spending? When have you ever known politicians to cut spending?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techs

The facts: According to the SSA, the life expectancy for a 65-year-old man in 1940 was 76.9 years. Today, a man aged 65 can be expected to live to 81. Most of the increase in life expectancy in the past half century has been for infants, not for the elderly.

---

Now who’s filling who up with smoke. This is the easiest point to disprove. Take a look here, male 59.9 years in 1935, 1940, 60.8:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html
and here:
http://www.state.nj.us/health/chs/lifexp/

If I can disprove that one fact so easily, I am sure your other points are not that difficult to prove as smoke and mirrors…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techs

Their retirement benefits - even under a "flat-bust" system -- will be significantly higher than today's benefits in real terms.

---

And the cost of living will be proportionally higher, so there will be no real net gain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraflyer

And the cost of living will be proportionally higher, so there will be no real net gain.

---

Thank you, I was about to expound on that mistake as well... :thumbs:

So techs proves you wrong about where the money is, and the best you can come back with is an anectdote about your very same bitches of wanting to keep your money in your pocket through your own greed and lack of desire to live in and work with the greatest country evar?

SOrry, when it comes down to it, I have a problem with most Reps and Libraricans because of their lack of desire to help their fellow man and their own greed and selfishness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleetus

So techs proves you wrong about where the money is, and the best you can come back with is an anectdote about your very same bitches of wanting to keep your money in your pocket through your own greed and lack of desire to live in and work with the greatest country evar?

SOrry, when it comes down to it, I have a problem with most Reps and Libraricans because of their lack of desire to help their fellow man and their own greed and selfishness.

---

Sorry, he didn't prove a thing about where the money is...in fact, that statement he made actually AGREES that it's government bonds....nothing more than a promise. Same thing every damn politician does.

"Lack of desire to live in and work..."???? What the hell is that? I work for a living. I should have more of a say in what I do with my money, and not rely on an outdated, experimental social program just because "It's part of FDR's legacy".

And your "lack of desire to help their fellow man" statement is SOOOOOOO much BS. Your (and techs) world view on this issue seems to be one that only government can be charitable, that only government can provide, and private individuals who choose to think, invest, and donate by themselves absolutely CANNOT be entered into the equation.

And here's a few gems, straight from SSA's own website http://www.ssa.gov/qa.htm:

"Most countries in Europe, as well as Japan, have more serious challenges than the U.S. Even some developing countries are starting to face up to the aging of their populations.
What are these other countries doing to face their challenges?
Many of these countries have begun to prefund their social security plans. More than 20 countries, including Britain, Australia and Sweden, have established versions of personal accounts. "

Wow, private accounts....imagine that.

"Will Social Security be replaced by a private sector retirement plan ("privatization")? No. There are no credible plans to replace Social Security as the foundation for the retirement of American workers."

So there goes the AARP's fear-mongering about losing SS.

"If Social Security is not changed, payroll taxes will have to be increased, the benefits of today's younger workers will have to be cut, or massive transfers from general revenues will be required. Social Security's Chief Actuary states, "If benefits were reduced to meet the shortfall in revenue for the combined program, the reduction would need to be 27 percent starting with the exhaustion of the Trust Fund in 2042 and would rise to 32 percent for 2078. Alternatively, if additional revenue were provided beginning in 2042, revenue equivalent to a payroll tax rate increase of about 3.1 percentage points (from 12.4 percent under current law to about 15.5 percent) would be needed for the year. The additional revenue needed for 2043 would be equivalent to a payroll tax rate increase of about 4.5 percentage points for the year. Thereafter, the amount of additional revenue needed would gradually rise, reaching an amount equivalent to an increase in the payroll tax rate of about 5.9 percentage points for 2078 (or about 50 percent higher than today's rate)."....straight from the SSA's Trustee Report.

Nothing I like better than paying more taxes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraflyer

Sorry, he didn't prove a thing about where the money is...in fact, that statement he made actually AGREES that it's government bonds....nothing more than a promise. Same thing every damn politician does.

"Lack of desire to live in and work..."???? What the hell is that? I work for a living. I should have more of a say in what I do with my money, and not rely on an outdated, experimental social program just because "It's part of FDR's legacy".

And your "lack of desire to help their fellow man" statement is SOOOOOOO much BS. Your (and techs) world view on this issue seems to be one that only government can be charitable, that only government can provide, and private individuals who choose to think, invest, and donate by themselves absolutely CANNOT be entered into the equation.

---

No, my view is that if others would provide the government never would have had to step in. Hands off government and the charity of the common man failed, greed won out. Why do you and others with your view always conveniently forget that? Look back at your response, it is full of angry "I's" not the we of the country or the society you live in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleetus

No, my view is that if others would provide the government never would have had to step in. Hands off government and the charity of the common man failed, greed won out. Why do you and others with your view always conveniently forget that? Look back at your response, it is full of angry "I's" not the we of the country or the society you live in.

---

So, then society AS A WHOLE brought about the "failed common man's charity"?

"Greed won out"....perhaps "lack of foresight on the part of the individual" is more apt, and certainly does not condemn everyone.

Side note: your "we of the country" comment rings familiar.... Marx, anyone?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleetus

No, my view is that if others would provide the government never would have had to step in. Hands off government and the charity of the common man failed, greed won out. Why do you and others with your view always conveniently forget that? Look back at your response, it is full of angry "I's" not the we of the country or the society you live in.

---

Ah, but Individuals built this country, through hard work and the courage to take chances to make their lives better. That is lost on a lot of people. We are not to think of ourselves as individuals, rather as a collective, separated into "groups". I'm in a group, you're in a group, disabled groups, ethnic groups, unemployed groups, homeless groups..........yet, you need individuals to make up those groups, so the "I's" are necessary. I recall Hillary Clinton saying a few years back, "...we need to stop thinking of the individual, and start thinking as a group....". Uh, no, that could be construed as Socialism, which I'll have no part of, thank you very much.

I don't believe that the common man failed. I believe that those in power realized long ago, the best way to win votes is to create a dependancy. That's what has happened. Be dependant on the government for your retirement, health care, insurance, child care.......so I promise to protect those dependencies for you, in exchange for your vote. That's garbage.

Anyway, that's kinda how I see things, which are obviously different than how you see them. Which is fine.

Thanks for "listening"