Bush Points Out Govt Spending Social Security Funds Now (must read)

Bush Points Out Govt Spending Social Security Funds Now
By Alex Keto
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--President George W. Bush Friday pointed out that one
of the fundamental flaws of Social Security is that the federal government is
spending the surplus funds in the entitlement program on everything but Social
Security.

"One of the myths of Social Security is that your money is going into (an
account) - and the government is holding it and saving it for you," Bush told
an audience of supporters in Westfield, N.J.

"That's not the way it works. Your money is going into the system, and it's
getting spent - some of it on retirement benefits, other parts on just general
government (spending)," he said. Even though the Social Security system is currently running a surplus, Bush
warned once the money is spent, there is only "a paper IOU" backing up future
claims on the system.

The bottom line, Bush said, is the government has no chance of paying future
benefits it is currently guaranteeing.

"First of all, the government can't meet its promises," Bush said.

snip

no link yet ...can somebody pull from Dow Jones News Service


Is this the first time Bush points out that our govt are CROOKS!!!!!!!!!!!

Ok, Mr. Bush--you've admitted that you spend our SocSec money. So shut up and quit spending it.

Are we supposed to believe that privatization will somehow solve this problem?

What an idiot. He's try to "sell" his plan, by highlighting the fact that there are no SocSec funds anyway.

"Hell! We might as well dismantle the entire system! There's no money in it, anyway!"

The more * speaks, the more he digs himself into a pit.

by my calculations, i.e., only 75% of what was collected in payroll taxes in 2003 was paid out in benefits to retirees, survivors and the disabled. I haven't seen figures for 2004. See the chart titled "Trust Fund operations" at the link below.

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/chartbooks/fast_facts/2003/ff2003.html

He's got that 4 year date with the man, and it's worth Billions to Bu$h and Crooks!

he could easily just spend our private accounts and cover it up with accounting. Why would that be different than having a general fund?

Social Security Income is not subject to garnishment under Bankruptcy.

Anyone know what the new "Thanks Credit Card Companies for the Campaign Contribution Bankruptcy Law" says about these private accounts?

Could you spend all your life putting money into your Private Investment Account, only to see it seized by your creditors if you get sick and have to file bankruptcy??

Specifically, the 4% or whatever he was calling for. The reason being that it would be locked up in some kind of investments.

However, the funny thing about that which might bear looking into (which of course you won't be able to because the administration won't let you) would be how much of the money that is invested in private accounts would be diversified right back into the same bonds that social security is using now. Additionally, would the government be able to influence whoever manages the accounts to roll money into treasury securities if the government was in need.

For example, say we had private accounts and the budget was tapped out. Suddenly a crisis breaks out somewhere that requires US intervention of troops. Congress needs to authorize a supplemental bill but there is no money for it because everything is tied up in the borrowing they needed to do to set up the accounts.

Would the president at that time be able to go to the people managing the accounts and say - hey we need to issue a boatload of treasury bonds to raise money for the war we are going to fight. To do that we'd like you to convert 400 billion of assets in the private accounts mutual fund into treasury bonds to help us finance the war.

If that was the case, I'd think it could very possibly result in significant losses to some people, lower rates of return, as well as a certain amount of stagnation to the economy. And in the end the government would issue the same IOU for that money.

by pointing out that the rich don't pay them anyway?

Don't mis-underestimate him. The sheep buy this shit up. They'll say something like "Isn't it so refreshing that he's so honest".

Only problem is that most haven't learned what my parents taught me a long time ago. "there's no honor among thieves".

There has to be a name for this type of mind control. Any Psyche Majors out there?

It works with Gun Control too. "We don't need new laws, we don't even enforce the ones already on the books".

So he has the rationale for cutting medicaire, medicaid and SS.
They're going after the social programs first.

He hit the trifecta, remember. He told this sick fucking joke probably a half dozen times and this Republican audiences howled in laughter.

Yeah, Mr. Bush-- you admit the truth when confronted without that EAR PIECE voice in your ear!

You're an idiot if you think we are! And pit is right. He's in so deep, and if his political Republican supporters don't DIVORCE themselves from American's true REALITIES, their VALUES won't be worth a MORAL lick, nor prayer!

Mr. Bush--Stop robbing us of our culture, freedoms, civil rights and liberties. Stop stealing our states UNITY. Stop turning the youth against our Elderly and vice-versa. CEASE with your IDEALOGIES that have NO PLACE within out CONSTITUION and stop using Jefferson (i.e.) for your "SELL." Jefferson was a DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN those first years, then dropped the REPUBLICAN and became a true DEMOCRAT.

:kick:

is all the bank gives me when I put money in there, too.

Maybe the change needed is a law saying the gov't can only tap SS $ to pay SS claims instead of using it to finance other things. SS works.

Repubes laughed at that...

But George W. claimed during that campaign that he wouldn't touch SS money!

Liar.

The masses preferred to make fun of the term "lock box" instead of thinking. Same thing is happening now. All they hear is, save SS and personal accounts (personal accounts will magically happen without costing extra).

That can either increase or decrease in value based on the strength of the company?

Sure, you can always sell that piece of paper, but only if someone wants to buy it.

So much for that AAA credit rating the US used to have.

Looks like Marshall was right: Bush intends to default on US Treasury Securities.

...you know, my base! My HAVES and HAVE-MORES!" *smirk*.

So now that I'm spending all your SS that was promised to you and that I myself promised NOT to spend, you must allow me to destroy SS completely and commit treason by reneging on US securities.

Hey I meant to ammend that part in that quaint paper, the whatchamacallit, Constipation, anyways."

-Machine-Stamped, G.W. bush

then follow it up with a hearty BWAHAHAHA!!!!!

We'll see how it pans out. Maybe the sheeple will start to connect the unaffordable tax cuts to the SS "crisis". It could happen.

That the surplus revenues raised by the Social Security payroll tax are spent each year and not "saved"? Of course it's legal. It's how Congress set up the Social Security system from day one. It's only since around the early 1980s, however, that there's been a significantly large surplus -- that is, that the Social Security payroll tax was bringing in more revenues each year than the Social Security system was paying out each year -- that any one has really paid much attention.

but we have a whole slew of politicians (on both sides of the aisle) who need to find alternative employment. IMO, * is playing with fire here...let's hope he gets BURNED!!!!!! :nuke:

US Constitution

Article XIV.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

On edit, not bolding the subclause..
Article XIV.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

I believe it is.

For the President of the United States to publicly besmirch the Full Faith and Credit of the United States for politcal gain is not a good thing.

public debt.

This is such a cut and dry case for Impeachment..

Why?

Where's the outrage! Sounds kind of like screwing up washing clothes so that your wife won't make you wash clothes anymore.

Get the meme going. Bush doesn't believe in full faith and credit.

They are legal obligations on the part of the US government.

Is Bush saying that all of the "paper IOUs" that foreign governments are currently holding are just pieces of paper that won't be paid back?

Boy, if so the US economy is about to go into a nosedive.

the government WILL meet theses promises, otherwise there will eventually be an overthrow of the government, you know it and I know it. I wish that bastard would stop playing games.

How about Ronald Reagan on Alan Greenspan's advice. Who put the first tax on SS payments? Ditto Ronald Reagan. Who put illegal aliens on SS? That would be Richard Nixon. Who took them off? Bill Clinton. Who put them back? Newt Gingritch.

Google search "Social Security history". It will take you to the SS web page. Find "brief history of SS" and you'll have government support for your assertions that Repubs are responsible for the ills of SS.

airports, and roads, and libraries in his honor! Wow!

Needs a LOT more publicity.

If we had that lock box we wouldn't be in this shit.

Bush voters: :nopity:

JIM LEHRER: Yesterday, Governor George W. Bush had a town meeting in Londonderry, New Hampshire.

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: We're in a tax debate here in this state and around the country. And let me explain my position as clearly as I can. First, unspent surpluses in Washington, D.C. will be spent, you mark my words, you leave money sitting around the table in Washington, Washington politicians will spend it. Now, I believe there's enough money. If you lockbox the payroll taxes, there is $2 trillion to make sure the Social Security system is safe and secure-- $2 trillion.

I intend to lockbox the payroll taxes and spend them only on what they're supposed to be spent on, and that's Social Security.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june00/gop_stump_1-14.html

Yup...that's the same guy! Our little baboon of a preznit.

But the rightwingnuts will screech that bush-god never ever flip-flops and never ever lies.

Rightwingnuts are very, very deeply stupid.

I was going to say "weasel," but that would be dissing weasels.

Nor will they find it, same-o, same-o

n/t

If the government can't meet its promises, then SS Payroll Taxes should be discontinued UNTIL THEY CAN.

And get your hands out of the cookie jar.

Bush is trying to spread the blame and pass the buck.

What right has he or congress to mess with American lifes.

This is outrageous! The prick comes into office with a surplus that would choke a horse and the pigs ate it up.

since FDR have spent surplus social security funds as they are received. Not one nickel was ever put in a "lockbox" by any president. The surplus is simply made part of the general treasury and spent. (U.S. Bonds are issued to the SS fund, but since they are debts of the U.S. government, this is simply an accounting gimmick.)There is nothing new or different in what Bushie is saying.

Find for me one other instance in history where the POTUS has come out and said that we will not pay, or will not be able to pay our Treasury Notes.

You may see this as rhetoric, but if the hundreds of countries around the world heard what * said and decided to divest themselves of our T-bills, we would be in a world of crap.

Almost like what happened the last time these idiots controlled all three branches of government. That only led to the Great Depression and World War II.

So now, contrary to what you said that "everybody does it", we have a POTUS that is telling the world and every American that the United Effing States of America is not able to honor our T-bills.

Speaking of which. Is is a time for a run on the banks yet? I've got quite a bit of IOU's from my Credit Union that say I have money in there. Think they wouldn't give it to me if I asked for a withdraw?

what you are accusing me of saying.

that since Clinton balanced the budget and we had a surplus, not a deficit, he did not take from the SS fund -- didn't need to. Is this wrong? sounds right.

All SS surpluses since the program started have been invested in government bonds and the bonds have always been paid. The general fund even kicked in to help SS 7 times. Bush is the first to try to steal.


Accounting gimmick?

We've been responsibly been paying extra since 1983 to cover what will be needed for the baby boom retirement. That's real money, not an accounting gimmick. If the GOP wasn't able to borrow that money from SS they would have just borrowed it elsewhere, so we are saddling our heirs with no extra debt.

I'd say the accounting gimmick is borrowing money and then saying you won't pay it back. Bush is the "accounting gimmick."

The truth is, the GOP borrowed trillions to finance tax cuts for the rich and worthless military equipment. They will never pay any of it back unless they are forced. I'm looking forward to the public becoming more educated about what has gone on here. If not, we are doomed.

I expect to see the dollar drop like a rock in the next few trading sessions.

In other words the US Government are crooks!!!

Well thats the first truthful thing he has ever said!!!

that the T-bills/IOUs would be honored. I tried to ask it as a question, that if the US gov't. defaulted on the SS bills, wouldn't that cause all holders of US Treasury Bills to demand instant payment (60% are held by foreign gov'ts.) and destroy the US economy. But I didn't get to ask.

I suggest everybody read Paul Krugman's essay where he talks about how the 'reformers' of SS like to say two different things about the so-called SS Trust Fund at the same time. They need to be taken to task...since the SS funds have been used to 'cover' the true general fund defict since the 1960's, if the 'fund' is in crisis, then the entire government is in crisis! Here's the link:

http://www.bepress.com/ev/vol2/iss1/art1/

why should this ignorant babbling be taken any more seriously than any other of Bush's nonsense?

we don't have a LOCK BOX.

that government issued securities which is what is in the SC account are worthless. That in effect says to all other holders of these IOUs is that they are also screwed. One hell of a lot of these securities are held by foreigners and foreign banks. I wonder what they must be thinking. Bob

What a moron! He tells that the US Govt securities are worthless. Tell that to the Bond Traders and also China & Japan and see how low does the Dollar end up.
What an idiot!!!!!!!!!!

Brazil inflation...here we come

You watch what happens to housing.

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/FRA501A.html

"So also many countries' central banks have begun to put ever more of their reserves into the euro and currencies other than Uncle Sam's dollar. Now even the Central Bank of China, the greatest friend of Uncle Sam in need, has begun to buy some euros. China itself has also begun to use some of its dollars - as long as they are still accepted by them - to buy real goods from other Asians and thousands of tons of iron ore and steel from Brazil, etc. (Brazil's president recently took a huge business delegation to China, and a Chinese one just went to Argentina. They are going after South African minerals too.)"

about it?!

...guess what China and Japan? We're NOT good for it!

Oh, I forgot - we did....:mad:

That was OUR social security surplus that Bush gave to the rich. I want MY money back.

I need to send this article around. Thanks.

n/t

For years I wondered how such a rip-off could occur. Now I understand: The IOU's are Treasury Bonds. That changes things JUST a little.

the government began collecting Social Security taxes. Where do you think almost 50% of the government debt is owed to ? It's not owed to other countries, it is owed to the government itself. Where do you think the Social Security money is invested ? It is invested in government T-bills which fund the general revenue.

made a choice NOT to use the Soc Sec surplus for Soc Sec solvency!

He decided to use it for "tax cuts" that were supposed to help our economy and deficit --- they didn't.

And to this day - he is using $114 Billion surplus for the 2005 budget.

Soc Sec works fine when you STOP taking the money we put in.

Everyone here seems to be shocked and amazed that it is going on, as if shrub is the first president ever to do it.

EVERY budget since Social Security started has been based on using the social Security surplus to pay for goernment spending. Even those so-called budget surpluses in the 90's were funded by Social Security.

They didn't just spend it.

You get your $$ from the mtg holder today, and you spend it on all kind of neat stuff! But then...the balloon payment comes due, and you have to pay it!

For this President to actually say "Our gov't can't meet it's obligations" is absolutely terrible!

What will he do if China, Japan, and everyone else that has purchased our treasury bonds started to sell them BECAUSE they actually believe this idiot?

Since his SS privatization plan is failing, he falls back on "well, there's no money in it anyway" bs. I have an 11 year old son and I know how their minds work.

Why do some people describe the "special issue" securities held by the trust funds as worthless IOUs? What is SSA's reaction to this criticism?

Far from being "worthless IOUs," the investments held by the trust funds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U. S. Government. The government has always repaid Social Security, with interest. The special-issue securities are, therefore, just as safe as U.S. Savings Bonds or other financial instruments of the Federal government.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html#n7

shrubby could start a tresury meltdown with his nonsense

tax cuts and war and now he says we only have paper IOUs. Well he'd better make sure there is money in the coffers to pay those IOUs or we'll put his sorry ass in jail for defaulting on his loans. We need some mafia types (metaphorically speaking) to make sure these crooks pay back our money with interest!!! Take it out of the Pentagoon's budget!

Didn't he say the complete opposite on the campaign trail in 2000?

I think I'm going to have to take a break from DU for a while. I feel an annurism coming on.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/03/20050304-9.html

I believe it's the same speech referenced in the original post, at least the quotes are in it.

Not defending the Idiot Son of an Asshole, but it seems the quotes are taken a bit out of context.

snip>

If you look over here, in the '50s, 16 people were paying into the system to pay for one retiree. So if that person was to get $14,200, say, it would be $900 a payer. The system now is 3.3 people paying into the system. In a decade it's going to be two people paying in the system. Now, this is a pay-as-you-go system. In other words, it says when you retire, somebody is going to have to pay for your benefits. This is not a -- this is not a savings account. One of the myths of Social Security is that your money is going into it and the government is holding it and saving it for you. That's not the way it works. Your money is going into the system and it's getting spent -- some of it on retirement benefits, other parts on just general government. And there's an IOU, a paper IOU accumulating. But it's not just sitting there. There's not an account with your name that's saying, on behalf of you, the government has now got your money. That's not the way it works. So it's a pay-as-you-go. It goes in and goes out.

big snip>

Let me tell you why it makes sense to me that -- first of all, the government can't meet its promises. But one way for a younger worker to come close to what the government has promised is to be able to take a portion of the money and get a better rate of return on your own money than that which the Social Security system gets.

The Bush regime can be innoculated against.

There is a concept in psychology pertaining to this: it is associated with anticipation.

And part of what I am trying to advocate is that if you mark the spin, you can quickly put out a vaccine to protect yourself and others (mostly: we get it) from the insidious effects of the Bush vial spin plague.

So, now, they're saying that the government can meet its promises.

And next would be?:

So, we need to go to privatization anyway.

SS $$ isn't ours now or later ("There's not an account with your name that's saying. . ." then later states "get a better rate of return on YOUR own money. . ." So, how would our personal accounts be ours anymore than the money invested? He needs to be a "bit" more specific, as if he could or would.

"One of the myths of Social Security is that your money is going into (an account) - and the government is holding it and saving it for you"
-- GWB

That's like saying "one of the myths of Banking is that your money is going into an account and sits there waiting for you" as if the actual cash sits physically in a safety deposit box. No, it is lent out, Mr. pretzeldent! But we deposit money into the account believing that the bank will manage its money in a fashion that ensure it can pay out the deposit as promised.

"First of all, the government can't meet its promises," Bush said.

What you, Mr. pretzeldent, are saying is that your tax policies and unnecessary war have rendered your administration of finances fiscally unsound, that you will default on the obligations entered into in good faith, that you selectively intend to default just on the debts owed to working American citizens, and that the debts owed on other instruments to your base, the Ken Lays and Brian Ebbers of the world, will be paid.

How nice of you. However...

After you are jailed for fiscal malfeasance (I'm dreamin'), we will decide for ourselves what obligations are met and how they will be paid. Meanwhile, get outta' our house! Impeach this village idiot now!!!

it is a major economic failure for our country ....and NOW

He wants to "stick it to middle America" as opposed to going back to those top 1% and saying "I made a mistake".

It's called wealth transfer.

They better be able to pay those back. If poor people's feet are being held to the fire (bankruptcy bill) than we will hold our government to it's promises. We're entitled, just like any other creditor.

No, it's more like no INTENTION of paying future benefits

Dumbass!!!:argh:

we wouldn't need to be robbing the Social Security Trust Fund . . . hello-o-o-o-o! . . .

any of his MBA classes except for that daddy was important. It is amazing how much money he has to give in regard to Iraq, how much money in taxes he can give up, etc.

and said, "Hey you ASSwipe!!! this is a "paper IOU" also... is it worthless?!?!?!!!!!!!"

spent it all and more, I don't think we know the half of what is going down as far as the accounting is concerned, afterall his best friend is Ken Lay.

problem for it's workers because it was not putting in what was needed in the match, it devised a solution where it "ramped up" its contributions to get itself out of the hole. The money was in a continuing appropriation which meant the state could not decide not to appropriate it in a tough year. Why is no one talking about doing the same for ss? We've got 40 years until a crisis, start ramping up the government pay back now -- sure that means some thing will not be able to be funded -- you have to make choices if you want tax cuts and wars -- but you have an obligation which must be met so start doing it. Scarfing off the money was nothing but theft and now the piper is at the door -- so start making good.

By even suggesting that the US Government can not meet it's obligation, he has violated his oath of office to uphold the Constitution.

Impeach his lying ass NOW!!!

shrub has to go!

He said the rich just find ways to avoid paying taxes anyway, so why bother taxing them at all? It's the same with SS: "We're already spending your social security taxes on other things, so no point in expecting it to there in the future."

WORSE Prez ever!!!!!!!

the government can't meet its promises," Bush said <--- need we say more, when he does such a great job when not around ear-piece Rove!

What's interesting is that a public official is finally admitting it...but for the wrong reasons. He wants to destroy SS in the worst way and all other government transfer payments that we've been paying for for our working lives. He can easily raise taxes and fix it, but he'd rather piss it away on his foreign adventures and defense boondoggles like missile defenses and shields.

Last month, the Republicans in Congress received a handy little 103-page tutorial on how to explain Bush**'s SS reform to the masses in persuasive terms. (It will tick you off to read it but I urge you to do so if you haven't already.)

From page 19 of Saving Social Security: A Guide to Social Security Reform:

Liberals - I mean you, Paul Krugman - have spent immense amounts of verbiage obscuring the fact that the trust fund is an
accounting fiction. Its assets are IOUs from the rest of the federal government. When 2018 rolls around, the government will have to find the money to pay off those IOUs. It will have to raise revenues or cut spending or borrow elsewhere to do that.

http://www.rawstory.com/images/pdfs/rawstory_socialsecurity.pdf

Here's the truth: THIS administration can't conceive of a way the government will be able to repay the IOUs in 2018 without resorting to raising revenues, cutting spending, borrowing elsewhere...or (as a presumably happy alternative) instituting Bush**'s reform.

And of course they'll never point out that THIS administration is raiding the Trust Fund to cover the huge federal deficit IT created...and keeps running up. (http://zfacts.com/p/318.html)

BushCo agents will try to convince you "the money was never there in the first place", and hit you over the head with "no money is saved for the future; what you pay today is used to pay today's retirees."

They're right, no money is saved. BECAUSE THE SURPLUS IS BEING SPENT!! But the money was indeed there in the first place...unless you believe the "social security tax withheld" line on your paystub is an illusion.

Your involuntary contribution goes to the SSA. They turn around and disperse payments to the recipients...and loan the UNUSED CONTRIBUTIONS to the Feds in return for T-bonds.

Folks, this is DECEIPT and THEFT all rolled into one. First of all, our social security contributions are not only being used for social security. Many people already know this; many don't. But with every paycheck, we're helping BushCo pay down the national debt so they can run it up even more.

Second and most important, the Republicans are using scare tactics again to get what they want, plain and simple. (Ta da! Surprised?) Maybe the government will renege on the IOUs in 2018, maybe not. Who knows till we get there? So BushCo pumps up the volume, mentions the need to "cut benefits" or "raise revenues" to get beyond 2018 unless something is done NOW, and in a misinformed panic, Americans are supposed to embrace Bush**'s plan.

It's total pre-meditated BS with the single goal of privatizing SS, and don't believe any RWer who says otherwise.

I can understand politicians not being able to put a chicken in every pot but we're talking about the "full faith and credit of the United States governnent" here!

:wtf: