Herr Texxx - Quite obviously labeling a government as bankrupt in the same context as private individuals is kind of silly to begin with, but, YOUR president is doing it, so and the definition used by your president, apparently/presumably, is "unable to independently generate enough revenue to cover its costs". Now, if that is the definition we are using, that definition can be applied to every single branch of the federal government since Bush brought deficits back into vogue in 01. They are unable to independently generate enough revenue to cover their costs - hence they are bankrupt - according to your president's definition.
That was a huge murmur in the audience when President Bush started talking about the financial woes of SS. What's the deal? What assumptions are being made by each side that take us down divergent paths?
so is there any reason why the rebuttal didn't attack bush on this SS claim he made? it would have been seemingly pretty easy to bust him on this. all they did was say he was playing roulette and gambling with the SS money.
Sam please share with us your analysis about Social Security and its solvency lasting until 2042. I'm eager to learn from your thoughts.
You don't get it. President Bush doesn't require for any other aspect of this government to be solvent. Most of the other areas of the government aren't paying for itself. Why is S.S. the only program that has to pay for himself. The President is saying that if a program can't pay for itself then it is in crisis and going bankrupt. By that logic the Army, Navy, and the other things mentioned on the President's list are all bankrupt. If Bush feels that the rest of government can go on without paying for itself why is S.S. different? Sam was saying why do we have to doanything to fix S.S. Sam doesn't need a plan for solvency, since no other part of govt. has a plan for solvency. In addition Bush with his tax cuts is pushing the other listed areas of the U.S. govt. further into bankruptcy, according to Bush's own definition.
It is not my analysis, it is that of the Social Security Trust Fund Board: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR04/IV_LRest.html#wp239829 ....and I believe this analysis is conservative, other estimates put it at 2052. I hope this piqued your interest. Now for Pw3ning you in this fashion I would invite you to turn some KOLN b****es out on my behalf.
LOL. You've Pwn3d me by attempting to answer my questions? That's a new one. I'm genuinely attempting to understand the mind of the American liberal and am rebuffed by Sam and FranchiseBlade (unsolicited from him, I might add...)? That says a lot. By the way - it's either Köln, Koeln (if you can't figure out how to type the "ö") or Cologne.
Of course the military can't pay for itself, it doesn't make any money (edit: we could turn the military loose to pillage foreign countries, or hire it out as the enforcement arm of international organizations, thus allowing the military to become solvent, but I don't think it would be a very popular idea ). Instead, it provides a necessary service that pretty much every American recognizes as essential, and thus we pay taxes to pay for it. Congress is constitutionally mandated, so we would have a difficult time getting rid of that, not to mention the fact that the only people who could get rid of congress are congress. It doesn't really matter anyway, as SS is just hand waving to distract you from seeing that your income tax is higher than you think it is. These social security reforms are tax cuts in disguise in conjunction with mandating responsible retirement planning.
It doesn't matter. If we can't raise enough tax revenues to pay for discretionary spending - which we can't, and don't, then the government is BANKRUPT, as are all of its programs, by the definition the President uses. Of course, the president is unconcerned with this BANKRUPTCY, he does not see it as a CRISIS, so he just borrows money to cover for this BANKRUPTCY - money that he will never have to pay back but future generations will. My question is why is possible insolvency in 40 plus years for one program A CRISIS while current insolvency for other programs is not a CRISIS? Not only is it not a CRISIS, but the president's chosen method for addressing this CRISIS was to INCREASE spending and DECREASE revenues, intentionally making this CRISIS even worse and more DIRE. No, there is something else at work. A bunch of jackass ideologues from the Cato institute who sit around and read the Fountainhead think that borrowing trillions of dollars in order implement a new program that ultimately offers no solution to the CRISIS or the impending BANKRUPTCY even though it is sold as such is worth doing for ideological reasons, despite the fact that it offers very few tangible benefits over the current system and much higher risks (oh, but it would transfer large amounts of public funds from our BANKRUPT government to private individuals to administarte this new plan at a much higher cost than the old plan- laudable...)
Yes and via taxes the rest of govt. should be sustained to, but it isn't and hasn't been ever since Bush took over the Presidency. This President has cut taxes and continued to spend like a drunken sailor. The govt. is not paying for itself in any aspect right now except S.S. That is the only govt. program that pays for itself, and it actually has a SURPLUS. But for some reason, according to Bush, that is the program that is in Crisis, and headed towards bankruptcy.
LOL? Rebuffed by me? I don't recall I did any rebuffing. What was the offending phrase? If it says a lot about anything it is your sensitivity(if you were actually serious). I didn't realize that big rugged stand on their own conservatives were so easily offended. I'll have to treat you with kid gloves now that I know that normal conversation is a little on the dangerous side for you. I honestly can't think of anything in my post that would be seen as a rebuff.
Isn't there a 5-year plan to correct the budget deficit? There is no plan to correct Social Security in place. Granted it is a political football.
Yes, it is a great plan, it is called "hope to god the sh-t magically fixes itself" BTW, Is there a five year plan to correct the National debt too? Because that is the level of solvency that GWB is demanding of Social Security - perpetual positive net worth.
