Bush on Iraq = Bush on Social Security.
By on Apr 18th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Bush on Iraq = Bush on Social Security.
Dan Froomkin on Bush’s new bubble:
President Bush’s public campaign to push back against Congressional demands for withdrawal from Iraq is becoming highly reminiscent of his failed effort two years ago to win support for a radical overhaul of Social Security.
The meticulously choreographed settings, the carefully controlled audiences, the mind-numbing repetition of hoary talking points (with a particular emphasis on stoking fears) — it’s like deja vu.
And so is the result: A public that is apparently more turned off to Bush’s ideas the more he talks about them.
More in today’s Progress Report.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Keep talking then Mr. Bush. Your idiocy is now plain for all to see (except for the deluded and tireless zealots who still kiss your butt and call it candy.)
April 18th, 2007 at 2:34 pmThe worst president and only self proclamed dictator in the history of America and no one is listening to him.? Oh we are listening to him alright and with his every insane, murderious word we are wondering why he isnt in jail and all his assets aren’t seized…We are wondering how many of our’s and theirs have to die before every one rises up, storm’s the black house and take’s our country back…What say all of you.?..Join Kucenich and all who want truth and justice to prevail in America…Impeach, indict and seize all their asset’s.Blessings.
April 18th, 2007 at 2:38 pmThe astounding waste of lives, time, money, and America’s future the presidency of George W. Busch has achieved boggles the mind.
April 18th, 2007 at 2:41 pmYes, why indeed address Social Security now when we can simply wait until it collapses from all the Baby Boomers?
April 18th, 2007 at 2:42 pmAfter six years of incompetence, ineptitude, and disconnectedness, it’s no wonder the public is turned off. If weren’t for the right wing wurlitzer blaring 24/7, the public might have turned off sooner. The noise machine is still blaring its’ lies and propaganda, but reality has finally set in, and no one is really listening.
April 18th, 2007 at 2:49 pmInsanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein
April 18th, 2007 at 2:49 pmSocial Security is actually one issue I agree with Bush on. Go figure.
April 18th, 2007 at 2:52 pmWhat is it going to take before Bush finally gets it that **no one is listening to him any more**. He has never been able to figure out when to stop digging that hole. But, as a progressive I have no problem with his digging the hole. Soon that hole is going to cave in on him.
April 18th, 2007 at 2:57 pm“Yes, why indeed address Social Security now when we can simply wait until it collapses from all the Baby Boomers?”
Elizabeth: Since you like to post as a “voice of authority”, how about backing that claim up with proof. A link to any reputable economist who agrees with your statement will work just fine. You do know how to use “the Google”, don’t you?
April 18th, 2007 at 3:00 pmah, the feinting troll…
April 18th, 2007 at 3:00 pmYes, why indeed address Social Security now when we can simply wait until it collapses from all the Baby Boomers?
Comment by Elizabeth — April 18, 2007 @ 2:42 pm
Jake, you’re not fooling anyone with your name and sex change. Very divserse of you, though. I wonder, is Elizabeth a “registered independent”?
April 18th, 2007 at 3:06 pmre #11
I was wondering that too. the posts have the pose that jake likes to take: the “I’m an independent but…. “bit. In this case it’s the whole “I don’t usuallly agree with bush, but on SS…”
April 18th, 2007 at 3:14 pm‘elizabeth’ also has the tried and true ‘jake’ tactic of throwing out the one-line non-sequitur……….
April 18th, 2007 at 3:20 pm(elizabeth showed up yesterday, claimed to have been posting awhile, says she’s “a Democrat, actually”, knows all the standard troll plays, when challenged about being a gender-bendered jake/patrick, replied with “we’ll see”, suggests she might be an aquaintance of rabidbunny, etc., etc., etc………)
April 18th, 2007 at 3:46 pmBush has changed his rhetoric in the past couple of days, becoming much more combative. He said he wants to show that “some Americans” support our troops.
You know what they call it when you launch a fierce frontal assault against overwhelming numbers because it’s clear that they’re about to overtake your position?
A Bonzai Charge.
There’s Bushie, crashing into a mass of Democrats, screaming “Allah Akbar!”
April 18th, 2007 at 4:25 pm#7 Elizabeth
Social Security is actually one issue I agree with Bush on. Go figure.
Which part do you agree on? Is it the part where Bush admitted that private accounts would do nothing to address solvency? Or do you agree with him in wanting to promote private accounts to help his friends in the banking and brokerage industries?
I tend to agree with the Social Security trustees who say it’s going to remain solvent for decades.
April 18th, 2007 at 5:24 pmPresident Bush’s public campaign to push back against Congressional demands for withdrawal from Iraq is becoming highly reminiscent of his failed effort two years ago to win support for a radical overhaul of Social Security.
I hope it does go the same way as his big SS privatization push. I think that was really the beginning of this downward spiral of his. He grabbed the ‘third rail of American politics’ and sunk his teeth into it. Fried him but good.
April 18th, 2007 at 5:28 pmWho is Jake? I guess I am the only person concerned with 75 million Americans retiring over the next 20 years. You really need a “link” proving that?
April 18th, 2007 at 5:38 pmEver since the election in 2004, whenever they send Bush out to ’speechify’ and campaign for some policy or bill the polling for the support for the object of the campaign goes down in direct proportion to the amount of time he is out making appearances.
You think they would eventually figure out that sending Bush and Cheney out to campaign to drum up support for anything is now the death knell for it.
.
April 18th, 2007 at 5:38 pm#18 Elizabeth
I guess I am the only person concerned with 75 million Americans retiring over the next 20 years. You really need a “link†proving that?
How come you aren’t concerned about Medicare, Jake…er…Elizabeth? According to the trustees for both, Medicare’s in far worse shape. Are you waiting for Bush to tell you to be concerned about it?
Report Emphasizes Shortfall in Medicare
April 18th, 2007 at 6:07 pm“The financial outlook for Social Security has improved marginally since 2000,” wrote Saving and Palmer. “In sharp contrast, Medicare’s financial outlook has deteriorated dramatically over the past five years and is now much worse that Social Security’s.”
I am concerned about Medicare as well, but at least that got addressed once already. Everyone but Bush is ignoring Social Security.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:10 pmRaven:
I am not Jake or Patrick1. What are you talking about? You even agreed I wasn’t a few days ago.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:48 pmFrom FinancialSense.
http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/cooke/2005/0215.html
…Social Security payments started in 1940 with 1 beneficiary per 600 workers. By 2033 it looks as though there will be 1 beneficiary for every 2 workers. Our Social Security “surplus” is projected to begin its inevitable downward trend in 2009. By 2018 Social Security will be running an operating deficit that will increase with each passing year. There won’t be enough worker income to pay for the beneficiary outgo.
Problem One: Demographics.
We keep having babies. After World War 2, returning GI’s celebrated the joy of life by starting the Baby Boom. By 1964 they, and their happily nubile companions, had started a whole new generation that would shape the American economy for the next 75 years. The Boomer generation created outsized demands for diapers, bicycles, schools, cars, college educations, jobs, housing and health care.
And so here we are. Next on the Boomer agenda: Retirement.
Between 2008 and 2033 over the hill Boomers, their elders, and the 4.5 million immigrants who came to America during the same period, will be hitting the retirement rolls. Twenty three percent of the projected American population. Eighty five million beneficiaries. They will all need food, clothing, housing and medical care. Most will also need some form of senior care before they die.
Problem Two: Congressional prevarication.
Most Americans believed they were buying old age and survivors insurance based on rules set up by the 1935 Social Security Act. Each participant had a separate account. Wage earners paid into their accounts under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA). Self employed individuals paid into their accounts according to the rules of the Self Employment Contributions Act (SECA). Each account was backed by the financial integrity of the U. S. Government. Benefits would be paid according to the amounts credited to each account. Americans were led to believe that Social Security would provide a financial foundation for their retirement.
Big mistake. Congress used the money to fund the Federal budget. It’s gone.
Problem Three: Social Security accounting is done with smoke and mirrors.
First of all, it has been assumed that future deficits can be financed with current surpluses. That assumption is false. Our inability to switch even a portion of Social Security cash flow to private accounts is a tacit admission that there is no actuarial basis for the accumulation of individual account benefits. If Social Security were actuarially solvent, then the adoption of private accounts would simply mean we would be replacing one asset class with another investment vehicle.
Second, despite claims to the contrary, there is no such thing as a “Trust Fund”. Social Security “investments” are merely bookkeeping entries in which one branch of the Federal Government (the Treasury) promises to repay loans made to another branch of the Federal Government (Social Security). Congress then spends the money without regard for the ultimate value of the underlying “asset” which may in fact be worthless – or not even exist. Instead of requiring that our Social Security funds be spent on revenue producing capital investments, Congress has simply used the money to pay current expenses. Hence, any associated value is only backed by the “full faith” of the U. S. Government. Other than taxes, debt, or fund transfers from other Federal accounts, there is no way to satisfy future claims.
Third, it has always been assumed that the Federal Government of the United States has sufficient credit to finance future Social Security payments. That assumption – as we will discuss below – is also false.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:21 pmStill waiting for your discussion below, muckdog.
Raven, it was actually yesterday you posted this (I don’t know how to link to the McCain Swiftboating thread, remember that one):
“OK, Elizabeth, you pass.
You’re not jake/patrick.
You can stay.
But only until McCain loses the primary, please?”
Comment by Raven — April 17, 2007 @ 6:56 pm
April 18th, 2007 at 8:49 pm#21 Elizabeth
I am concerned about Medicare as well, but at least that got addressed once already. Everyone but Bush is ignoring Social Security.
Wrong. It didn’t get addressed. The GOP (your pals) put together a deal to help their extremely wealth Big Pharma friends extremely wealthier. It didn’t do anything to help Medicare’s solvency. Read the article I linked to. It says:
“But in the trustees’ report released yesterday, they wrote that Medicare’s prospects have “deteriorated dramatically” with rising medical costs and the addition in 2003 of a prescription drug benefit.”
April 18th, 2007 at 10:28 pm“Keep talking then Mr. Bush. Your idiocy is now plain for all to see (except for the deluded and tireless zealots who still kiss your butt and call it candy.)
Comment by Roger — April 18, 2007″
Really? I don’t know what age you are but after the boomers get through with Social Security wait till you see you taxes sky rocket!
April 18th, 2007 at 10:46 pm#23 muckdog
With all due respect, muckdog, you’re full of crap. If the Social Security trust fund is nothing but an accounting trick, how is it earning interest? In fact, you don’t even take interest earnings into account in your little story. The holdings, which are quite real, are earning up to 9.25% interest and that’s what will keep it solvent for years even after it takes in less from withholding than it pays out.
It’s not that there won’t be a problem some day, about 40 years from now. It’s just that you and the fearmongers and the crooked little mental midgets like Bush have no interest in fixing a problem with Social Security. You have different reasons for wanting to mess with it. And, you know damn well that the administration costs for private accounts are going to be a hell of a lot higher than the miniscule .7% of total income that Social Security has right now. And, you know who those administration costs are going to be paid to, as well. Privatization is a scam and you know it. It’s not meant to fix Social Security. It’s meant to help banks and brokerages profit from it.
If anyone is pulling money from the trust and spending it, be sure to give credit where credit is due. It was the GOP controlled Congress who went on a spending spree while cutting the hell out of taxes for the rich. And it was Bush who had to go and start a war for absolutely no reason, also while cutting the hell out of taxes for the rich.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:51 pm“The holdings, which are quite real, are earning up to 9.25% interest”
Who is paying 9.25%?
April 18th, 2007 at 11:26 pm#28 michael
Who is paying 9.25%?
Social Security, solvency and political spin
The emphasis on 2018 by Bush and other officials relies on “either an implication or very often an explicit statement†that the Social Security trust funds have no real assets, Greenstein said. Try telling that to the Social Security trustees, including Treasury Secretary John Snow, who offer a detailed list of government securities they hold, paying up to 9.25 percent interest and totaling more than $1.6 trillion.
2004 OASDI Trustees Report
April 19th, 2007 at 5:34 pmAnother source of income to the trust funds is interest received on investments held by the trust funds. That portion of each trust fund which is not required to meet current cost of benefits and administration is invested, on a daily basis, primarily in interest-bearing obligations of the U.S. Government (including special public-debt obligations described below). Investments may also be made in obligations guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the United States, including certain Federally sponsored agency obligations that are designated in the laws authorizing their issuance as lawful investments for fiduciary and trust funds under the control and authority of the United States or any officer of the United States. These obligations may be acquired on original issue at the issue price or by purchase of outstanding obligations at their market price.