Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

By *'s own Definition, the Federal Government is Bankrupt...today!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
paineinthearse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-12-05 05:53 PM
Original message
By *'s own Definition, the Federal Government is Bankrupt...today!
Edited on Sat Feb-12-05 05:56 PM by paineinthearse
...and it happened in HIS watch, can't blame this one on The Big Dog.

========================================================

Bush Radio Address Asserts Social Security 'Bankrupt' by 2042; By That Definition Federal Govt. Bankrupt Now Says Dem Strategist Weiner

2/12/2005 10:06:00 AM


----------------------------------------------------------------------

To: National Desk

Contact: Bob Weiner or Rebecca Vander Linde, 301-283-0821 or 202-361-0611

WASHINGTON, Feb. 12 /U.S. Newswire/ -- President Bush is using the Chicken Little myth in his radio address today when he asserts that "by 2042 the entire system" will be "bankrupt," says Robert Weiner, Democratic strategist and former chief of staff of the House Aging Committee under Chairman Claude Pepper (D-FL).

Weiner says, "By that definition, the federal government is bankrupt right now -- spending nearly $500 billion more per year than it takes in, plus the off-budget items of another some $80 billion in the supplemental appropriations for the Iraq war. It is hypocritical for the President to assert that Social Security will be bankrupt for a fixable shortfall in decades but not the federal government now with a deficit he created by his discretionary tax breaks and military action."

Weiner explained, "The reality is that the sky is far from falling, and Social Security is far from the President's latest words of 'a train wreck coming' in this week's staged 'conversations'. Social Security by law actually cannot go bankrupt because it is a pay-as-you-go system. Moreover, the 80 percent of benefits covered under current projections even by 2052 according to CBO (or 73 percent by 2042 according to SSA) are more than current benefits."

"There are solutions that Congress could employ IF there is a problem in the future, which might not even be necessary if the economy continues to grow jobs from which payroll taxes fund the system. But while the President and Republicans in Congress have put out some very harmful immediate options that Americans rightfully do not want, whether privatizing the program, cutting benefits, or raising the eligibility age, Democrats are considering solutions as well but which would NOT hurt the system and would only kick in if needed. Two solutions which would solve the problem if necessary include: 1) Rather than making all of Bush's tax cuts permanent under law, still provide the ongoing cuts but allow in the law that in any year that Social Security has insufficient funds to pay full benefits, a portion of the tax cuts is to-be-used if needed to cover the difference; or 2) Invest the excess money the government receives from Social Security payroll taxes the next twenty (or more) years into the very kinds of funds the President is proposing and reap the profits for the Trust Fund, thereby making it unnecessary to alter individuals' benefits or payroll taxes."

"Down the road, Congress could change these solutions but for now, we would all know the problem is covered in a rational way which does no harm to the most successful social program in American history, one which has reduced poverty among the elderly by one-third, from 40 percent to 10 percent. Social Security would remain secure and would not be tampered with. This is far better than what the President has proposed, a cry-wolf, Granny-You're-On-Your-Own, Wall Street giveaway. Isn't it time to end the unnecessary politics of fear?" Weiner concluded.

Weiner heads up a Washington public affairs think tank, Robert Weiner Associates -- http://www.weinerpublic.com -- following his position with Pepper and later with Cong. Charles Rangel (D/NY), John Conyers (D/MI), and the Clinton White House. For additional Social Security statements and opeds by Weiner, see:

http://www.weinerpublic.com/20050204.doc or

http://www.weinerpublic.com/20050115.doc or

http://www.weinerpublic.com/page227.html.

(Source: Robert Weiner Associates 301-283-0821 or 202-361-0611)

http://www.usnewswire.com/

===================

Text of President Bush's Radio Address to the Nation for Feb. 12

2/12/2005 11:13:00 AM


----------------------------------------------------------------------

To: National Desk

Contact: White House Press Office, 202-456-2580

WASHINGTON, Feb. 12 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The following is the text of the President's radio address to the nation today:

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. In my State of the Union address, I discussed the need to act to strengthen and save Social Security. Since then, I have traveled to eight states and spoken with tens of thousands of you about my ideas. I have reminded you that Social Security was one of the great moral successes of the 20th century. And for those born before 1950, I have assured you that the Social Security system will not change in any way, and you will receive your checks.

I've also warned our younger workers that the government has made promises it cannot pay for with the current pay-as-you-go system. Social Security was created decades ago for a very different era. In 1950, about 16 workers paid into the system for every one person drawing benefits. Today, we have only about three workers for each beneficiary, and over the next few decades, baby boomers like me will retire, people will be living longer and benefits are scheduled to increase dramatically. Eventually, there will be just two workers per beneficiary. With every passing year, fewer workers will be paying ever-higher benefits to ever-larger numbers of retirees.

So here is the result: 13 years from now, in 2018, Social Security will be paying out more than it collects in payroll taxes; and every year afterward will bring a new and larger shortfall. For example, in the year 2027, the government will somehow have to come up with an extra $200 billion a year to keep the system afloat. By the year 2033, the annual shortfall would be more than $300 billion a year. And by the year 2042, the entire system would be bankrupt. If we do not act now to avert that outcome, the only solutions would be dramatically higher taxes, massive new borrowing or sudden and severe cuts in Social Security benefits or other government programs.

To keep the promise of Social Security alive for our children and grandchildren, we need to fix the system once and for all. Fixing Social Security permanently will require a candid review of the options. In recent years, many people have offered suggestions, such as limiting benefits for wealthy retirees; indexing benefits to prices, instead of wages; increasing the retirement age; or changing the benefit formulas and creating disincentives for early collection of Social Security benefits. All these ideas are on the table.

I will work with members of Congress and listen to any good idea that does not include raising payroll taxes. But we cannot pretend that the problem does not exist. Social Security will go broke when some of our younger workers get ready to retire, and that is a fact. And if you're a younger person, you ought to be asking your elected officials, what are you going to do about it -- because every year we wait, the problem becomes worse for our children.

And as we fix Social Security permanently, we must make it a better deal for younger workers by allowing them to set aside part of their payroll taxes in personal retirement accounts. The accounts would be voluntary. The money would go into a conservative mix of bond and stock funds that would have the opportunity to earn a higher rate of return than anything the current system could provide. A young person who earns an average of $35,000 a year over his or her career would have nearly a quarter million dollars saved in his or her own retirement account. And that money would provide a nest egg to supplement that worker's traditional Social Security check, or to pass on to his or her children. Best of all, it would replace the empty promises of the current system with real assets of ownership.

Reforming Social Security will not be easy, but if we approach this debate with courage and honesty, I am confident we will succeed, because our children's retirement security is more important than partisan politics.

Thank you for listening.

END

http://www.usnewswire.com/



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Sydnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-12-05 06:07 PM
Response to Original message
1. want to read the links but have to run out right now
Don't want to lose this thread. Thanks for posting this!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Randi_Listener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-12-05 06:09 PM
Response to Original message
2. No one is listening to that motherfucker.
He talks shit like he has chunky diarrhea vomit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seeing Red Donating Member (108 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-12-05 06:28 PM
Response to Original message
3. Interesting and very true, but it's not surprising ...
I'm always amazed at how hypocritical "*" and his cabal really are. Another thing that comes to mind: when they were trying to sell the war on iraq to us, they kept telling us that we couldn't "wait" to see if he has weapons or not, etc. etc., we had to go in and get him quickly. and now? "it's hard work." "it takes time." blah blah - what, we can't wait to start a war, but we are told we HAVE to wait to start democracy and spread freedom?

giving medals to those who should really be fired ... campaigning on "responsibility" and then rewarding irresponsibility in the administration, they're just ridiculous

and this latest seems to be another instance of *'s "fuzzy math" - yeah, he wasn't describing Gore when he said that, he was talking about HIMSELF
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 05:06 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC