Bush on Social Security
This page can be found at: http://benfrank.net/patriots/bush_on_social_security
Bush in 2005: "Some in our country think that Social Security is a trust fund -- in other words, there’s a pile of money being accumulated. That’s just simply not true. The money -- payroll taxes going into the Social Security are spent. They’re spent on benefits and they’re spent on government programs. There is no trust [fund]."
Bush, Social Security and The Facts
| Bush in a 2000 Debate with Gore: "A promise made will be a promise kept... There's $2.3 trillion of surplus that we can use
to make sure younger workers have a Social Security plan in the future." Bush in 2005: "Some in our country think that Social Security is a trust fund -- in other words, there’s a pile of money being accumulated. That’s just simply not true. The money -- payroll taxes going into the Social Security are spent. They’re spent on benefits and they’re spent on government programs. There is no trust." Bush in the 2001 State of the Union: "To make sure the retirement savings of America’s seniors are not diverted to any other program, my budget protects all $2.6 trillion of the Social Security surplus for Social Security, and for Social Security alone." This is Mr. Bush caught in a lie. "There is no trust".... what is he talking about, what did he do with it? In 2000 he said there was a $2.6 trillion surplus, now he says there is none. He promised that the surplus would not be diverted to any other program, now he says there is no surplus. Why can't someone in the mainstream media ask these questions? Britain's Parliament questions Blair weekly, why can't our Congress question Bush as well? It's time to demand some accountability. Listen to George demonstrate his command of Social Security (mp3) |
| Bush in same 2000 debate: "You leave future generations with tremendous
I.O.U.'s. It's time to have a leader that not -- doesn't put off, you know,
tomorrow what we should do today." Bush's Actions: Raised the national debt limit 3 times, more than $2 trillion since 2000. The national debt was $6 trillion when Bush took office- it is now $7.6 trillion, it will be more than $8 trillion by the end of 2005. Bush's tax cuts for the rich (Warren Buffet's 2nd tax cut was $300 million) have already cost $2 trillion, now he wants to make them permanent. Bush said we should not put off until tomorrow what we should do today. Nice words, too bad he doesn't follow his own advice. He is saddling our children with debt in order to give the billionaires a free ride. |
|
The Simple Truth
Aside from the 'lost' trust fund, there is another hidden issue on Social Security- the switch from wage-indexing to price-indexing. These measures determine the benefits paid after you retire. The Congressional Research Service has done a retroactive study- what if we had switched to price-indexing in 1940?  Today's seniors average $15,000 social security benefits, if we had followed Bush's advice in 1940, these folks would now be trying to live on $6,000 per year. Who is Mr. Bush working for? |
 Another way of looking at the Bush
plan is this, an additional 7 million senior citizens would be living
in poverty today had we switched to price-indexing in 1940.
|
| Interesting Fact: During Bush's 1978 run for Congress he said Social Security would be bankrupt by 1988. That turned out to be... incorrect. |
| What sense does it make to say Social Security is in trouble, then
devise a plan that will cost 'trillions' just to make the switch to
private accounts. Doesn't basic logic dictate that we should use the trillions to pay benefits, not pay some accounting firm to set up stock market accounts for us. |
|
WOMAN IN AUDIENCE: "I don’t really understand. How is it the new plan is going to fix that problem?" DUBYA: "Because the - all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculated, for example, is on the table. Whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There’s a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those - changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be - or closer delivered to what has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? "It’s kind of muddled. Look, there’s a series of things that cause the - like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate - the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those - if that growth is affected, it will help on the red." Confused? Read it again and again. Does this man know what he's talking about- or is he like a High School student that didn't prepare for the exam? Listen to George March 16, several weeks after this meeting (mp3) |
How can I possibly hope to win without getting monetary donations?
