Do The Math On Dubya's Social Security Reform

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 2/7/5 | Harley Sorensen

[TheBigB]

Anyone using the term "Dubya" is certainly a bitter loser

I protest such an uinfounded characterization.

[GOPJ]

Wonder how the writer of this trash felt about Clinton. Clinton who lied. Clinton who told an untruth with knowledge of the truth. As opposed to Bush, who told the truth as he knew it. Kerry believed there were WMD in Iraq before the war. By this writers standards, was Kerry a liar?

I suspect the writer will have a double standard when it comes to Kerry - or for that matter, any democrat.

The writer doesn't know the basic difference between lying and not having complete information or the writer is lying. Intentionally trying to mislead us. What does that say about his truthfulness? It says we can't trust him or what he writes. And he's probably not telling the truth about Bush either ... or anything else for that matter.

[wbill]

Good stuff. In fact, this reporter is SO smart, that I'm sure he has a viable alternative that will leave Social Security fiscally stable, with no increase in taxes or reduction in payments. /sarcasm

Any A$$hole can say "This won't work". I'm just not hearing any suggestions.

Every single news report that I've seen says that Social Security will be just fine through 2040, 2050, or some unspecified date, and then, will be able to pay 70% of benefits. Does anyone want to take bets on whether or not the Dems will take the blame for a 30% reduction? How about the blame for a tax increase?

[An Old Marine]

The facts presented in this column are wrong.

In the interest of brevity I won't enumerate them all but there is almost nothing right here. I suspect that either we have another case of a liberal journalist that failed to do their homework or possibly he deliberately chose to rearrange some facts, half-facts, and non-facts to support his position prior to even researching the article.

Your pick.

[ClaireSolt]

I remember listening to Randi Rhodes trying to develop the idea that GWB was a liar, early on, long before Iraq. It was so forced and false that I was convinced it came from Terry McAulioff. His analysis seemed to be that voters didn't like linton lying and he could defeat Bush by making him out to be a liar, too. Another example of the, "Well, everyone does it" lame defense of Clinton. I guess it plays in SF, but elsewhere it just seems ridiculous.

[GVnana]

What a steaming pile!

After the government takes out its chunk to create your annuity, how much are you going to have left over to buy that penthouse with a Golden Gate view?

After paying 15% of my income to social security how would I ever buy that penthouse?

[wbill]

"Well, everyone else does it....." The liberal mindset never ceases to amaze me.

Ignoring all the tin-foil hat conspiracy websites, at the VERY best, Clinton was a liar who habitually cheated on his wife.

All of my wife's friends (and for the most part, family)are liberals (moderate to total whacko). If I cheated on my wife, she'd divorce me, then castrate me, and everyone she knows would be lining up to hand her a dull knife to do it. However, Clinton doing exactly the same thing is OK in their book. The man walks on water as far as they know.

go figure.

[GeorgeW23225]

Does anyone else smell a Jason Blair wannabe???

[Fudd]

And where was the criticism when Clinton told the country something had to be done to save Social Security?

The difference between W and his predecessor (and many in the Senate) is that W is willing to actually DO something, rather than sit around and chatter about how something needs to be done. Social Security, Iraq.

Teddy Roosevelt had something to say about talkers and does, but the quote escapes me right now.

[CIDKauf]

Bush is the only President to propose private accounts that give you rights to YOUR MONEY, which currently YOU DO NOT HAVE. The government does not have to give you a dime according to the Supreme Court of the United States. They may cut benefits, raise taxes, or both, and they will because they have to. Currently $530 Billion out of a total government outlay of $2.2 Trillion or 23% of the total yearly outlay in 2004 is to pay social security. By the year 2018, there will be $848 Billion going out (or 37% of the outlays), and LESS than that coming in. Therefore, taxpayers will make up the difference. By the year 2022, OVER $1 Trillion PER YEAR will be paid out if current benefits are paid seasonally adjusted for inflation. The system is clearly UNSUSTAINABLE in its present form. Take a look at the numbers for yourself. This is NOT POLITICAL, but rather is FACTUAL. Quit listening to Hillary and the Democrats because they just want to put the reform off for a few years until a Democrat is in the White House, so that they can fix the problem instead of the Republicans. In the meantime, it costs taxpayers $600 Billion PER YEAR to put this problem off. Let's get together and blow off the elitist politicians and do it for us, the masses. Check it out, and this is a Libertarian web site NOT Republican or Democrat!! http://www.socialsecurity.org/catoplan/

[CIDKauf]

LOL ... I stand corrected!

[lilylangtree]

Thanks for the background info. Have circulated to non-freepers.

[erikm88]

Here's the problem with liberal logic: (As an aside, have you ever wondered why conservatives hate the United States so much? In their view, their government always fails... This "journalist" equates "the United States" with the government body... Liberal to a T. The centerpiece of Bush's plan, which is still evolving, is the "privatized" or "personalized" account. The way Bush explains it, that sounds like a great idea, but it hasn't worked out well in Chile, where it's been in effect for 25 years, and so we have to wonder whether it'll work here. This "journalist" has committed the fallacy of false analogy. Comparing two systems as equal and the same when they are very much different, and does not pose a sound argument.

[RockinRight]

The war is not against the PEOPLE of Iraq, a$$clown.

And he didn't lie.

[CIDKauf]

The only reason this didn't happen to Clinton YET, is because Hillary does not want to go through a nasty divorce before her run at the presidency. As soon as she is defeated in the 2008 election, she will drop Billy like a 2 foot putt.

[CyberAnt]

You can't reach people who state, "the President clearly lied to us". They have made up their minds already and there is no use trying to confuse them with facts.

[Prost1]

Strange, this seems to have a lot in common with the attacks on Bush Admin and Iraq war.
All those who supported removing Saddam turned against this president. But, when Clinton was president, they were so supportive.
Same time frame, same support, and now antagonism!
Democratic agenda is power, not policy.

[CIDKauf]

The truth is that IT HAS worked EXTREMELY WELL in Chile. Check it out: http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/articles/jp-04-10-98.html

[pookie18]

Strange, this seems to have a lot in common with the attacks on Bush Admin and Iraq war. All those who supported removing Saddam turned against this president. But, when Clinton was president, they were so supportive. Same time frame, same support, and now antagonism!

Great point. W should change parties...so that they support him & then when all they're quotes are written in stone, he should change back ;-)

[satchmodog9]

thanks, good research