The Bush Presidency: A Retrospective

[sealybobo]

exactly, who was bin laden before 9/11...to Clinton in his own words


"Bin Laden was a legal issue not a national security issue"

Good call on that one.

No Clinton didn't rape social security

you obviously don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Once again, Bill Clinton is trying to outdo Congress in protecting Social Security. Two years ago, he challenged the Congress to save 60 percent of the surplus for Social Security. In this year’s budget, Clinton is proposing a "Social Security solvency lock-box" that is intended to secure every dollar of the Social Security surplus for Social Security. While this plan may conjure up images of stacks of cash waiting in Fort Knox for the Baby Boomers to retire, the reality is that his plan leaves the vault empty when the program begins to run large cash deficits in just 14 years.

There is only one place to put the Social Security surplus - in the Personal Retirement Accounts of hard working Americans

Clinton’s lock-box plan is nothing more than a scheme to use more than $3 trillion in Social Security surpluses to buy down federal debt. In exchange, the Social Security trust fund gets another $3 trillion worth of IOUs. To be sure, most Americans would rather pay down the debt than use Social Security’s surpluses to fund pork barrel projects. But make no mistake, once that money is spent – to buy down debt or fund new programs – it will not be there to cover Social Security’s long-term liabilities.

And those liabilities are enormous. As most Americans are becoming aware, in 2014 Social Security will begin spending more on benefits than it collects in payroll taxes. Ten years later, its annual deficits will reach $370 billion, and by 2034, when today’s 33-year olds begin to retire, the program will be mired in $800 billion deficits. Over the next 75 years, those deficits total $122 trillion, or $19 trillion after adjusting for inflation.

As most Americans are also learning, there are only three ways to deal with this financial crisis: raise taxes, cut benefits, or borrow more money. These options will be the same regardless of how many IOUs are in the Social Security trust fund or how much debt is retired over the next decade. Indeed, even if Washington were to retire the entire national debt this afternoon, Social Security would still begin deficit spending by the time today’s five-year olds enter college.

But Clinton’s plan is likely to appeal to most Americans because it plays to their desire to reduce the national debt and it takes advantage of their misperceptions (as well as the media’s) of Social Security’s fictional bookkeeping system. The bottom line is that adding $3 trillion in IOUs to the Social Security trust fund, as the president’s plan would do, can make the system look healthier on paper, but it does not create any real assets that can be drawn down to cover the system’s shortfalls.

Most government experts acknowledge that Social Security’s trust fund is little more than a ledger entry. Indeed, in last year’s budget documents, experts within the Clinton’s own Office of Management and Budget wrote:

"These balances [within the trust fund] are available to finance future benefit payments and other trust fund expenditures – but only in a bookkeeping sense. Unlike the assets of private pension plans, [government trust funds] do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits."
The Congressional Research Service has written much the same thing:

"While the trust funds have an important role in monitoring the finances of the program and maintaining its fiscal discipline, they are basically accounting devices. The federal securities they hold are not assets for the government…[they are] a form of IOU from one of its accounts to another…Those claims are not resources the government has at its disposal to pay for future Social Security claims. Simply put, the trust funds do not reflect an independent store of money for the program or the government…"
There is only one "lock-box" that will honestly keep politicians from raiding Social Security – a personal retirement account owned by individual workers. So instead of using these surpluses to buy down debt and create a mountain of IOUs, Congress and the White House should allow workers to divert their portion of the surplus payroll taxes into personal retirement accounts under their control. Personal retirement accounts are not only the best way of building individual retirement wealth, they effectively "pre-fund" Social Security which will dramatically reduce its long-term liabilities.

This year, the Social Security surplus will total $167 billion – equal to more than $1,100 for every worker who currently pays taxes into the program. Rebating this surplus to workers would finance a payroll tax cut of about 4 percentage points (out of the 12.4 percent payroll tax) without affecting current benefit payments. This means that a couple making $50,000 annually could put $2,000 into their account each year, or $20,000 over the next decade.

If American workers were allowed take the money Clinton wants to use to buy down debt, and invest it in their own personal retirement accounts earning, say, 8 percent annually, they would own nearly $6 trillion in assets by the time Social Security goes into deficit in 2014; and, they would own $56 trillion in assets by the time the trust fund runs out of IOUs in 2034. Talk about owning a piece of the rock.


Americans clearly want to "save" Social Security and pay down the national debt. But they should not fall for gimmicks, such as Clinton’s "lock-box," that promise to do both with the same money. If we’re going to pay down the debt we should use the savings from spending cuts or the sale of unneeded assets, not a raid Social Security’s surplus. There is only one place to put the Social Security surplus, in the personal retirement accounts of hard working Americans.

Clinton’s $3 Trillion Raid on Social Security -- FreedomWorks.org

You got this from Dick Armey?

OMG!!!

Contract with America?

Heritage Foundation?



The Contract with America was a document released by the United States Republican Party during the 1994 Congressional election campaign. Written by Larry Hunter [1] who was aided by Newt Gingrich, Robert Walker, Richard Armey, Bill Paxon, Tom DeLay, John Boehner and Jim Nussle, and in part using text from former President Ronald Reagan's 1985 State of the Union Address, the Contract detailed the actions the Republicans promised to take if they became the majority party in the United States House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years. Many of the Contract's policy ideas originated at The Heritage Foundation, a highly influential conservative think tank.

Now you idiots can call NPR or Air America a liberal source and have the fucking balls to use this as your source of information?

You basically got spun from the people who I believe actually ruined America.

Of course this is their take on things. Fucking idiot.

 

[Care4all]

Yeah Clinton did a great job

If by bankrupting social security to balance his own budget is good...I mean when you rob peter to pay paul I guess everyone wins?

He also had a chance to take out Bin Laden and didn't do it and he got away....thats a good job

He also ammended the CRA which helped get into the position we are today

O he also got impeached by the house

Quite a resume

But Andrew? Isn't that what these Republicans DID when they got the chance and power to save social security or give all of the people who paid in to social security their own surplus money back by lowering their social security taxes so they no longer paid in a surplus?

These articles say that repubs said the right thing for clinton to do was give a tax break to the workers, to the SS payers of taxes with these surplusses....BUT INSTEAD, the REPUBLICANS when they got the chance TOOK the "SS" surplus taxes collected and GAVE THE "INCOME" TAX PAYERS a tax break....where the wealthiest did get the largest tax breaks FROM THE SOCIAL SECIRITY tax suplusses....NOT THE WORKERS who actually paid SS taxes on all of their income.

Essentially stealing from PETER (ss surplus funds and tax payers) to pay PAUL, the wealthiest in this country with the biggest income tax break. (NOT the SS tax payer getting their own money back to invest in their own retirement creating this 6 trillion in wealth that the article speaks of...)???

They, these repub guys from Heritage and congress, talked a good GAME, but when it came down to it....their words were worth NOTHING and their ACTIONS even less....they HURT US with what they did with the SS surplus moneys MORE than Clinton's actions did in the long run.....they really stole from Peter to pay Paul...their rich, campaign contributors.

Sadly, that's how it looks to me.

Care

 

[Gord]

But Andrew? Isn't that what these Republicans DID when they got the chance and power to save social security or give all of the people who paid in to social security their own surplus money back by lowering their social security taxes so they no longer paid in a surplus?

These articles say that repubs said the right thing for clinton to do was give a tax break to the workers, to the SS payers of taxes with these surplusses....BUT INSTEAD, the REPUBLICANS when they got the chance TOOK the "SS" surplus taxes collected and GAVE THE "INCOME" TAX PAYERS a tax break....where the wealthiest did get the largest tax breaks FROM THE SOCIAL SECIRITY tax suplusses....NOT THE WORKERS who actually paid SS taxes on all of their income.

Essentially stealing from PETER (ss surplus funds and tax payers) to pay PAUL, the wealthiest in this country with the biggest income tax break. (NOT the SS tax payer getting their own money back to invest in their own retirement creating this 6 trillion in wealth that the article speaks of...)???

They, these repub guys from Heritage and congress, talked a good GAME, but when it came down to it....their words were worth NOTHING and their ACTIONS even less....they HURT US with what they did with the SS surplus moneys MORE than Clinton's actions did in the long run.....they really stole from Peter to pay Paul...their rich, campaign contributors.

Sadly, that's how it looks to me.

Care

Wrong:

 

[indago]

Looking back...

[ame=http://youtube.com/watch?v=IoXgRtDysLY]BUSH/ZOMBIES[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sR0XXPZUDQU]I, uh...[/ame]

 

[sealybobo]

Yes, lets blame him for something he was in office for 9 months for, and all the intel came from the Clinton administration

Thats like blaming clinton for the 93 atatcks even though he was only in office for 2 months

Hey Andy. I made a new threat called 9-11 not bush's fault. Hope to see you there to discuss.

Or, here is the link. CNN.com - Transcript: Bin Laden determined to strike in US - Apr 10, 2004

That's what Bush knew on 8-6-01. So he was informed/warned and he did nothing. He didn't let the airlines know so they could maybe be a little careful?

And Chaney had control of Norad? Even with this warning? That's odd.

And then they said, "who could have imagined using airplanes...."

They didn't have to imagine. They were told. And more than once. CIA agents flew down to Crawford to tell Bush and he said, "good, you covered your ass, now leave".

And I believe Tenet tried to tell Chaney/Condy and they told him to fuck off.

When you add it all up, it sort of seems like they did it on purpose. I guess we will know more after we have a complete/thurough 9-11 investigation. One that doesn't leave out important facts. And now we won't have the administration stonewalling the investigation.

The only thing that might prevent the truth from coming out is if the DEMS decide that the truth will be too damaging to our reputation.

But Bush will be prosecuted. Might not be by Congress, but that won't be for long. Bush can be sued by people outside the government once he is out of office. Criminal prosecution. Or the HAGUE might try him too.

I hope to god all the war profiteers, which include oil, banks and defense contracts, I hope they all get their assets frozen once the truth comes out.

This is the most treasonist/traitorist administration since Hoover.

 

[sealybobo]

Wrong:

Gord, that link is pathetic.

Let me explain. If you lower middle class wages and unemployment spikes, it only makes sense that we would then be paying less in taxes. Thanks a fucking lot.

And it only makes sense when you make millionaires into billionaires, that they would end up paying more of the taxes.

That's why I say, "give us the tax breaks instead and make the job market/economy right and we will gladly pay more in taxes.

And besides, rich people have loopholes to where they may pay a lot in taxes, or what you consider a lot, but then they get a whole lot of tax breaks you don't even know about.

Bottom line is trickle down doesn't work. The economy sucks and the treasury is empty.

 

[Gord]

Gord, that link is pathetic.

Let me explain. If you lower middle class wages and unemployment spikes, it only makes sense that we would then be paying less in taxes. Thanks a fucking lot.

The timeline is from 2000 to 2004. Middle class wages did not go down and there was no unemployment spike. Middle class wages went up and unemployment went down - thanks for making my argument for me...