Awwww man...! Not Again!

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Jan 7, 2004
5,849
384
48
Columbus, OH
<center><h1><a href=http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/1/2005/1042>A flat out whopper</a></h1></center>

<tt>January 13, 2005

AUSTIN, Texas -- Cheez, I go to all this trouble not to call the president of the United States a liar -- perhaps misinformed, did not seem to know about, no one has told him, etc. -- and then he just comes flat out with a whopper.

Drolly enough, he prefaced his latest with the unlikely statement, "As a matter of fact ..." before he proceeded to do battle against truth: "... 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. And that's what we're here to talk about, a system that will be bankrupt."

Let's try this again, slowly, for those who, like the president, seem to be having difficulty with reality. Social Security will not be bankrupt, will not be flat bust in 2042 or 2052 or even, as the president has also claimed, by 2018. According to the deliberately alarmist projections of the fund's trustees, it will have exhausted the trust fund in 2042. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Social Security will be able to rely on the trust fund until 2052 and after that will still be able to pay 81 percent of scheduled benefits.

And that's if no changes are made to the current system. - Molly Ivins</tt>

Unfortunately, lying seems to be a way of life for Dubbyuh. He creates crises that don't exist and then tries, in a half-assed, fumbling manner that leaves a crisis where none existed previously, to solve his created crisis.

Look, we've been through this before with Iraq, do we really have to go through it again here at home?

<center><img src=http://www.grimmy.com/images/MP_Archive/MP_2005/MP0115.gif>
 
freeandfun1 said:
Yeah, Awwww man...! Not Again! Another IDIOTIC post by bully! :funnyface :finger3:


No, he didn't make that one up that was Molly Ivins. A real shocker that it might be slightly anti-Bush and a little off.
 
So Bully,

Molly Ivins says that in 2052 that SS will be unable to pay the whole of the benefits, but that's okay because it will be her Grandchildren that will have to figure out the solution when it does become a serious crisis.

I for one like to have a forward thinking President that works to solve an issue before it becomes the crisis that it is likely to become if we keep the system the way it currently is. There is no doubt we will either have to raise taxes or cut the output and neither is really acceptable. This system was made as a safeguard against exactly this, somebody spending their entire investment before they came to retirement age. In this case it is the very group that is supposed to be protecting the citizens that is fivolously and fraudulently spending the money. And yes I do blame it on both of the parties, they get those billions and just can't help themselves.

Now while the end of SS as we know it doesn't come for a while I would rather not have my child paying for the crisis when the head finally does pop on this torrential zit on the face of US fiscal providence.

Regardless of the crisis status it is a terrible program that pays less than a 1% return on investment. I can do better than that just putting the money in a bank account let alone working within the safe limits that are set by his program that would allow me to put money into a private account.

I would rather pay more now and fix the issue then let it rot and fester and make my children pay three times as much when it finally is a crisis.
 
So in 1998 Bully and Molly must have believed that President Clinton was whipping up a fictional crisis as well.

In 1998, the major policy question in Washington was what to do with enormous anticipated federal budget surpluses. Republicans, arguing that a surplus meant the government was taking in too much money, wanted to cut taxes. Clinton wanted to kill any tax-cut proposal before it had a chance to gather support. So in his 1998 State of the Union speech, he came up with a famous slogan.

"What should we do with this projected surplus?" Clinton said. "I have a simple four-word answer: Save Social Security first."

Soon Clinton was going around the country, touting a coming Social Security "crisis." All of his administration's economic achievements, he said in February 1998, "are threatened by the looming fiscal crisis in Social Security." There should be no new spending — or, more importantly, no tax cuts — "before we take care of the crisis in Social Security that is looming when the baby boomers retire."

A number of Clinton's arguments back then sound uncannily like Bush's today, if one makes a few adjustments for newly revised figures on Social Security's finances. "We have a great opportunity now to take action now to avert a crisis in the Social Security system," Clinton said, again in February 1998. "By 2030, there will be twice as many elderly as there are today, with only two people working for every person drawing Social Security. After 2032, contributions from payroll taxes will only cover 75 cents on the dollar of current benefits. So we must act, and act now, to save Social Security."

Clinton's Social Security-crisis campaign, while a response to Republican plans for the surplus, was also a way for him to go on the political offensive during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. As the scandal grew, he became more interested in fighting off impeachment than forestalling tax cuts. But Social Security remained a potent rhetorical weapon. In September, Vice President Al Gore went to the Capitol for a Social Security pep rally with congressional Democrats, including House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, Sen. Edward Kennedy, Sen. Barbara Boxer, and others. Gore said that in coming years — by 2032 — "Social Security faces a serious fiscal crisis." Everyone in the group stayed remarkably on-message as they warned that the future was dire.

"Save Social Security first," said Gore.

"Save Social Security first," said Gephardt.

"Save Social Security first," said Kennedy.

"Save Social Security first," said Boxer.

Today, some of those same lawmakers are leading the opposition to President Bush's initiative and no longer fear a crisis in Social Security. And indeed, by 1999, after GOP tax-cut proposals had been defeated and he escaped conviction in his Senate impeachment trial, Social Security's future became a less urgent issue to Clinton. In his 957-page autobiography, My Life, Clinton included no extended discussion of Social Security at all.

Back in 1998, Democrats realized it was politically safe to rally around Clinton's statements about a Social Security crisis because they knew he did not really intend to take any action that matched his rhetoric. They also knew that Clinton's words were correct; Social Security was then, as it is now, facing a "looming fiscal crisis." He just didn't plan to do much about it.
Full Story
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: dmp
I lived in Texas for a while, and was subjected to the drivel of Molly Ivins on a daily basis. I found her to be a perfect reverse barometer: if she comes out against something, it can't be all bad.

We finally have a Chief Executive who displays the courage and conscience to address himself to the "third rail" of politics. It HAS to be addressed, Bully. Do the math. What do you suggest - we just whistle a happy tune and hope everything turns out all right?
 
Hobbit said:
Anybody notice that reforming social security was a really big issue until Bush started trying to fix it?


Same as Saddam. Anybody else remember that Clinton made it US Foreign policy by signing Legislation to have Regime Change in Iraq in 1998? Looks like a busy year of running around creating Crises for Clinton.
 

Forum List

Back
Top